Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTTISH LAW REFORM COMMITTEE

Mr. Willis: asked the Lord Advocate what matters are at present before the Scottish Law Reform Committee.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. William Grant): The Law Reform Committee for Scotland has before it, at present. one remit, namely:
The law relating to civil liability for loss, injury and damage caused—

(a)by animals;
(b) by dangerous agencies escaping from land.

Mr. Willis: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether he has yet decided to remit to the Committee the subject of rights of appeal in contempt of court cases about which I asked him last year? Will he also say when it is intended to implement the recommendations of the Committee in so far as they have not yet been implemented?

The Lord Advocate: I will certainly consider remitting to the Committee the question of the rights of appeal in contempt cases. As far as the implementation of the existing Reports are concerned, I think that we have not done too badly. Out of the ten, we have implemented two—and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) for implementing one—and two will be implemented if Bills before the House pass through this Session. In another two cases no action is recommended. Out of the remaining four, two have to be considered against a wider aspect of sheriff court procedure

as a whole, one in regard to maintenance orders involves consultation with Commonwealth Governments and the final one was only published in December last year.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Iron and Steel Industry (Denationalisation)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further progress the Iron and Steel Holdings Realisation Agency made in the denationalisation of the publicly-owned steel industry in the three months ended 31st January, 1961.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress made by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency in the denationalisation of the steel industry during the present Session of Parliament.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): During the three months ended 31st January, 1961, the Agency's receipts from realisation of securities in companies which are no longer its subsidiaries, was £1·8 million. Details of an impending sale of prior charges by the Agency have been reported in a Treasury Minute which was laid and published yesterday. This sale of securities, which will realise about £85 million, means the transfer to private ownership of about two-thirds of all the prior charges still held by the Agency in companies of which the equity has already been sold. The proceeds of this sale will enable the Agency to help finance the very large development programme of its subsidiary Richard Thomas & Baldwin Ltd., without calling upon the Exchequer for funds.

Mr. Nabarro: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend two questions? Firstly, in relation to the £85 million, which was the subject of the Treasury Minute late last evening, has there been a profit or a loss to public funds in that important regard? Secondly, in the context of Messrs. Richard Thomas and Baldwin, can my right hon. and learned Friend, having regard to the long delay which has already occurred, give the House an assurance that this issue, notably of the equities—the bluest of blue chips—is imminent?

Mr. Lloyd: With regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I stated in October that it was the intention of the Government to see that this process of denationalisation was substantially completed during this Parliament. With regard to the first part, there is no loss to public funds. These prior charges are created almost entirely at the time of the sale of the equities. They were moneys provided by the Agency itself. Therefore, the transaction has to be looked at together with the selling of the equities. As a matter of fact, as far as the four companies are concerned, in which both equities and prior charges has been disposed of, that is to say, Colvilles, Consetts, Dorman Long and United Steel, there is a profit of about £5 million.

Mr. Jay: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that he is totally wrong and appears to be ignorant of the main facts of this transaction? Is he not aware!that these prior charges were taken up at par by the Realisation Agency and are now beng sold at a heavy discount, involving a loss of about £25 million to the taxpayer? Is he not also aware that this totally unnecessary sale, which will do no good to anyone, is forcing gilt-edged prices down to record low levels, to the serious loss of many tens of thousands of small investors?

Mr. Lloyd: I completely disagree with the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. He forgets that we are under a statutory duty to do this. A statutory duty has been laid upon us by Parliament to get rid of these prior charges. As for the right hon. Gentleman's point about the prior stocks having been issued at par, they were issued at the time of the sale of the equity. Unless this money had been put up, the sums received for the equities would not have been what they were. On balance in the books of the Agency there is a surplus of £5 million.

Mr. Jay: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman really not aware that the fact that certain other transactions took place at the same time makes no difference whatever to the fact that these were issued at par and that therefore a large loss has been incurred? Is he not aware also that, though he is under a statutory obligation to carry out this foolish transaction at some time, he is under no obli-

gation whatever to carry it out at a moment when gilt-edged prices are so low that the loss to the taxpayer is at the highest possible figure?

Mr. Lloyd: I will give the right hon. Gentleman a practical example. When the equity of the Steel Company of Wales was sold, the Agency received £40 million for it. The Agency certainly would not have received £40 million unless it had been willing to put up £40 million worth of debentures at the same time.

Mr. Cronin: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer explain how shares acquired by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency at 20s. and now sold at 12s. 9d., as in the case of United Steel, can possibly make a profit.

Mr. Lloyd: They were not acquired by the Agency. There is a misunderstanding. I think it is thought that these prior charges were taken over when the industry was nationalised and compensation paid for them. It was nothing of the kind.

Hire Purchase

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the scheme, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Kidderminster, introduced by a Scottish hire purchase company, in conjunction with a commercial bank, which allows fax relief to be obtained by buyers of goods on hire purchase in respect of interest charges associated with the transaction; and whether the Inland Revenue have approved this arrangement.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Details of this scheme were submitted to the Inland Revenue, which indicated that, subject to the usual conditions, it would regard the interest paid to the bank as qualifying for tax relief under the existing law.

Mr. Nabarro: Does not this decision of the Inland Revenue mean that there is different treatment in taxation matters in the context of hire-purchase transactions north of the Border from that accorded south of the Border? Why should a fiscal preference be given to Scots at the expense of Sassenachs? I am a Sassenach. and I resent this.

Mr. Lloyd: I think that my hon. Friend is generalising too much. This


relates to a particular transaction, and I do not think that it necessarily has all that much advantage for the persons engaged in it.

Business Expenses (Season Tickets)

Mr. Gough: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the burden imposed on a large proportion of office workers by the recent increase in the cost of season tickets; and if he will direct the Board of Inland Revenue to allow the cost of annual season tickets, to and from the place of employment, to be charged against Income Tax as a normal business expense.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion among many others made to me in connection with the forthcoming Budget.

Mr. Gough: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, but will he be good enough to consider the particular aspects of this case? First, as these increased charges are very largely due to the heavy losses incurred by British Railways, is it not a little unfair that this section of taxpayers has to pay their contributions out of taxed as opposed to untaxed incomes? Secondly, will he bear in mind that whereas people going to and from their offices on business are entitled to claim tax relief, people going to and from their homes are not allowed to do so?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's points. There are other points connected with the problem which I shall also have to bear in mind.

Customs Procedures

Mr. Ridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the interests of exports, he will advise the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate customs procedures, with a view to expediting courteous and efficient discharge.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: These procedures are kept under review and I am not aware of any general difficulties requiring further investigation. If my hon. Friend has any particular suggestions to make I shall be very pleased to consider them.

Mr. Ridley: Apart from the case of Mr. Rushen, will my right hon. and

learned Friend look into the cases, details of which I will send to him, of delays of up to two months in obtaining Customs clearance at London Airport for small parts necessary for export? In view of the large number of complaints on this subject, does not he feel that it requires a little further consideration?

Mr. Lloyd: I shall be very grateful to my hon. Friend if he will send the particulars. This matter was raised by another of my hon. Friends two months ago. I asked for particulars then. I have received no particulars since then. It is much easier to investigate if one has the facts of a particular case. I will certainly do so if my hon. Friend asks.

Child Allowance

Mr. Millan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the case where a child over 16 years of age who would otherwise qualify for Income Tax child allowance has an income not much in excess of £100 per annum, he will introduce amending legislation to provide for a sliding scale of reduced child allowances.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion, but I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

Mr. Millan: I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for that reply, but will he keep in mind that there is now a very strong case in equity for introducing this sliding scale, particularly as the child tax allowance is now £150 for children over 16, and the tax involved in a particular case can be quite substantial?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member knows that there are considerable complications of an administrative nature about this matter, but I will certainly bear it in mind.

Surtax

Mr. Millan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average percentage of income which was represented by unearned income for the year 1958–59, in the case of total income of Surtax payers ranging from £2,000 to £2,500 per annum, at which range the lowest rate of Surtax is payable.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: It is estimated that 29 per cent. of the total income of individuals liable to Surtax for 1958–59 only at the lowest rate of 2s. in the £ was investment income.

Mr. Millan: Does not that high figure for unearned income at the lowest rate of income chargeable to Surtax shatter the myth that Surtax falls exclusively on the higher salary earners? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman keep in mind that, even if there were some justification for reducing Surtax, the very worst way of doing it would be by raising the level at which it begins to be payable because in that way higher salary earners and those drawing dividends would get equal benefit?

Mr. Lloyd: It has never been said that the burden falls exclusively on those in receipt of earned income. The figure of 29 per cent. for this category is of interest. The hon. Member may be interested in the figure for the whole range, which is 38 per cent. investment income in the whole range of Surtax.

Scottish Savings Committee

Mr. Bence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to reduce the expenditure of the Scottish Savings Committee.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have no immediate proposals for specific reductions. The expenditure of the Committee is subject to the normal Treasury control to ensure economy of management.

Mr. Bence: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that a savings committee should be one Government agency which should set an example and keep its expenditure as low as possible? This increase of £6,300 seems unwarranted in present circumstances.

Mr. Lloyd: It will be carefully scrutinised. I gather that it is for advertising and certain increases in staff. I agree with the proposition stated by the hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his supplementary.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirm that this is the most successful savings committee in the whole country?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot do that without notice, but I know from my personal

knowledge that it does a very good job of work.

Mr. Mitchison: Who controls the Treasury's internal expenditure?

Income Tax and National Insurance

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of income was paid in Income Tax and National Insurance contributions together by a man with a wife and one child with income of £9 a week in 1951–52; and what will be the corresponding percentage from July, 1961, on the assumption of present rates of Income Tax.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: For 1951–52 a married man with one child under 11 earning £9 a week paid 7·8 per cent. of his income in Income Tax and National Insurance contributions combined. At the present rates of Income Tax and the proposed rates of National Insurance and National Health Service contributions from July, 1961, the percentage would be 6·1.

Mr. Jay: Does not that show that on these levels of income there has been no material reduction in taxation in the last ten years?

Mr. Lloyd: I think it proves the old adage that it is unwise for an advocate to ask a question in cross-examination unless he knows the answer.

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of income will be paid in Income Tax and National Insurance contributions together from July, 1961, by a man with a wife and one child earning £8, £10 and £12 a week, respectively.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: With one child under 11, the percentages are 6·6, 6·6 and 8·8 respectively. It is assumed that there is no other source of income, and that the man is not in non-participating employment for the purposes of the graduated pension scheme.

Mr. Jay: Does that mean that from the level of £10 a week downwards there is no reduction in the total direct taxation paid by taxpayers in this category?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that it means that at all.

Mr. Green: Is it not also a fact that social benefits today stand higher than ever before in our history? Are they not widely spread, particularly amongst the lower income ranges?

Mr. Lloyd: It is true, for example, that unemployment benefit is 66 per cent. higher in real terms and retirement pensions at the new rate are over 40 per cent. higher in real terms.

Mr. Jay: Did not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's figure show that the percentage was 6 per cent. in the case of both the £8 a week and the £10 a week taxpayer? Does not that mean that there is no reduction in percentage paid when earnings fall below £10 a week?

Mr. Lloyd: It means that the percentages for the two figures for which the right hon. Gentleman asked are the same.

Fuel Oil

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the fact that fuel oil for heating was exempted from general hydro-carbon oil duties in 1947 in the circumstances of an entirely different fuel situation, he will now consider introducing a duty on fuel oil for heating, making an appropriate reduction in some other form of indirect taxation so as to avoid increasing the cost of living.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I cannot anticipate my Budget statement, but I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Cronin: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman nevertheless bear in mind that this is an absurd situation, in which an industry which is so basic as the coal mining industry, which is already handicapped by obligations dating from very long before the war, should have to compete most unfairly with fuel products imported from abroad?

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of that consideration.

Mr. H. Wilson: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman is considering my hon. Friend's proposal, would he also note the fact that a tax of lid. on this oil would provide enough Revenue to remove the whole of the taxation on diesel oil for road passenger transport?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly bear that matter in mind.

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from Kirkcaldy Town Council against the present rate of tax on fuel oil used in public service vehicles; and what was the nature of his reply.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have received representations asking me to remove or reduce the duty on such oil, and I have informed the council that I have noted their representations.

Mr. Gourlay: Will the Chancellor bear in mind, when considering any remission of taxation in his Budget, that in preference to reducing the liability of the Surtax payer, he should consider reducing the heavy tax on fuel oil, which represents a considerable burden on the workers, whose bus fares have risen substantially in the past few years?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly take note of what the hon. Member says.

Civil Service (Graduated Pensions Scheme)

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what decision has been taken with regard to participation by members of the Civil Service in the National Insurance graduated pensions scheme.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: In accordance with agreements reached on the Civil Service National Whitley Council and the Joint Co-ordinating Committee for Government Industrial Establishments, application was made to the Registrar of Non-Participating Employments last autumn to certify as non-participating the employment of all eligible established nonindustrial and industrial civil servants. The Registrar's certificate was received in October last, and all such civil servants will accordingly be contracted out of the National Insurance graduated scheme.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend what adjustments will be necessary to the conditions under which Civil Service pensions are paid in order that they can comply wth the law in regard to full transferability?

Mr. Lloyd: In view of the complications in this matter, I think I had much better have notice of that question.

Export Earnings

Sir Harmer Nicholls: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when his Department last inquired into the advantages which would result from a tax concession scheme with a view to improving United Kingdom export earnings.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: This matter has been thoroughly reconsidered since I became Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) on 14th February.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is not my right hon. and learned Friend disconcerted at the small number of firms who are actively engaged in the export business, and would it not appear prima facie that unless something concrete such as this is offered as an inducement we shall not get the proportion improved upon?

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of the difficulties that small firms have when entering into difficult export markets. The trouble about the suggestion of a special tax concession to exporters is, first of all, the difficulty of administering it, and, secondly, that it is contrary to international undertakings which we have given, and if we start, our competitors will also start, and a race in export taxes will not suit us in these matters.

British Museum Reading Room

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied with the experimental evening opening of the British Museum Reading Room twice weekly; what proposals the Trustees have put forward for placing this extension of hours on a permanent and daily basis; and what has been his response.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Yes, Sir. The Trustees proposed that late opening should be extended to five evenings a week in 1961–62. I have authorised an indefinite continuance of the present late opening on two evenings.

Mr. Robinson: Is the Chancellor aware that the first part of his reply is very gratifying, and that it bears out What I have heard from users of the

Reading Room? So far as the second part is concerned, I gather that he refuses this request. Does this not confirm the impression that the Government are treating the British Museum more meanly than any other great national institution? Is he further aware that the Lenin Library in Moscow is open until 11 p.m. every night of the week? Will he please reconsider the matter?

Mr. Lloyd: This was an experiment, and it has not yet been going long enough, I think, to form a judgment upon it. The hon. Member is quite right in saying that it is a question of extra staff and cost, as 19 more people will be required and £18,000. There are 59 new posts already created in the Museum, apart from this. I will consider what the hon. Member says, but I would rather see what use is made of these facilities over a longer period.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Can that apply to the Manuscript Room as well?

Mr. Lloyd: I will take note of that.

Mr. Robinson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Decimal Currency

Mr. J. Wells: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can yet state the results of the investigations he has made into the desirability of introducing a decimal currency.

Mr. Proudfoot: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has yet completed his consideration of whether to introduce decimal currency in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the report on decimal coinage by the British Association for the Advancement of Science and the Associated British Chambers of Commerce, a copy of which has been sent to him by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam; and whether, with a view to assessing the advantages of changing to a decimal coinage system in the United Kingdom, he will approach the South African Government for permission to send


observers to that country to study methods of overcoming transitional difficulties.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply given on 16th February to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). The Report by the British Association for the Advancement of Science and the Associated British Chambers of Commerce was not a Report to Her Majesty's Government. We are, however, giving its findings close consideration. We shall also take any steps to keep informed of developments in South Africa.

Mr. Wells: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had his attention drawn to an early day Motion signed by 78 hon. Members expressing the opinion that this is a practical business step?

[That this House calls attention to the need for decimal coinage, recognises the increasing and once-for-all cost of the change, notes the number of Commen wealth countries which have changed, or are changing, believes it to be a practical business decision, and urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce a decimal system of coinage at an early date.]

Mr. Lloyd: There are complications about it. If we take the £ as a unit and divide it into ten and 100, the lowest coin unit is 2½d. which is rather large. If we divide it by ten, then by 100 and 1,000, we get a very small one. If we do not take the £ as the basic starting point, there are very great complications in other directions.

Mr. Proudfoot: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that the cost of this inevitable step will be greater every day?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not dispute that, but I was pointing out the complications.

Mr. Lipton: Why not make the 10s. note into a £1 note, and then the problem of the decimal system will be solved?

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the present currency system is entirely satisfactory, and that no change whatsoever is required?

Mr. Lloyd: I have noted what my hon. Friend has said.

Plowden Committee

Sir G. Nicholson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will make a statement upon the work of the Plowden Committee;
(2) whether the recommendations of the Plowden Committee will be made public.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The recommendations from the Committee are confidential to Her Majesty's Government; but, as has already been promised, the conclusions reached by the Government on them will be put before the House. It is too soon to say when this will be done.

Sir G. Nicholson: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear these points in mind? This Committee was set up in response to the recommendation of the Estimates Committee, representing the whole House, with a view to improving the system of Treasury control, and it really is wrong that its recommendations should be confidential, when the business of this House is not a private affair between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and this Committee?

Mr. Lloyd: I will consider my hon. Friend's point. I think that one of the difficulties of it is that the Committee was asked to recommend also about certain internal processes, such as Cabinet procedure, which must be regarded as confidential. On other aspects, I will consider what can be done. I think the Committee will not finish its report until July of this year.

Mr. H. Wilson: Bearing in mind the very grave interest expressed from all sides of the House in the debate on defence expenditure just before Christmas on the clear lack of financial control and the difficulties of applying it, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when considering this matter, make it quite clear that if any of the important Select Committees of this House, whether the Estimates Committee or the Public Accounts Committee, requires this information, apart from that which deals with Cabinet procedure, he will not deny this Committee access to all the evidence which is available?

Mr. Lloyd: I am concerned about this matter, and will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Flood Damage

Mr. Woodnutt: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that substantial private companies and partnerships do not qualify for relief in respect of financial loss through flooding; and whether he will introduce amending legislation to authorise Customs and Excise to refund duty in respect of stocks of tobacco and cigarettes damaged by flooding.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am aware of the fact to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am afraid that the answer to the second part of his Question is. "No. Sir."

Mr. Woodnutt: Is not my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is not just a question of the loss of three or four packets of cigarettes, but one of thousands of pounds' worth of stock lost through flooding? Is he further aware that these people have already paid the Customs and Excise duty on it, and does he not think it is most unreasonable that they cannot get it back? Cannot he devise some means by which he could help them, and, if the answer is "No", cannot he ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to help them to the extent of the amount of the duty they have paid?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend will be aware that this is a question of outlays by substantial private companies and partnerships, and if a substantial company or partnership chooses to take a calculated commercial risk by not insuring, I do not think I can help them, but I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question.

Roads (Taxation)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the nature and extent of the use of British roads by vehicular traffic drivers as contrasted with the nature and extent of the use of British roads by pedestrians, if he will take steps to re-apportion the incidence of taxation in respect of roads between such users.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am afraid I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

Mr. Hughes: Is it not practical and useful in this way to build up a kind of insurance fund to be contributed to by delinquent motorists, who could thereby be made to pay compensation to the victims of their negligence in addition to any compensation that the victims might get in the law courts?

Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for partially clarifying his Question. I was not quite certain whether he was advocating a tax on pedestrians.

Greyhound Racing

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount collected through the pool betting duty on greyhound racing in the years 1950, 1955, 1959 and 1960, respectively.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The amounts were £7·1 million, £5·9 million, £6 million and £6·2 million, respectively.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to enable him to allocate a part of the amount collected through the pool betting duty on greyhound racing to help greyhound breeding and greyhound racing.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir.

Mr. Johnson: But would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this tax discriminates unfairly against dog racing, in that duty is not charged on tote bets on horse racing? As he will not consider my other suggestion, will he consider the simple alternative of abolishing that duty or, at least, reducing it very considerably?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a rather different question from that on the Order Paper.

Mr. A. Lewis: Can the Chancellor give any logical reason why this tax is based on bets placed on totalisators at greyhound race tracks, whereas the same type of bet placed on the same type of totalisator on horse-racing tracks does not bear tax? Can he tell us why there is tax on the one and not on the other? Will he stop this discrimination?

Mr. Lloyd: That, clearly, is quite a different matter from the Question on the Order Paper, which deals with greyhound breeding and greyhound racing.

Public Service Pensioners

Dr. King: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply he has given to representations made to him by the Public Service Pensioners' Council asking for a new Pensions Increase Act to ameliorate the position of public service pensioners.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Last month, a deputation from the Public Service Pensioners Council asked for an interview with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, since they were anxious that I should take their views into account before I prepared my Budget Statement. My hon. Friend saw the deputation on 31st January; while drawing their attention to the Government's publicly expressed views about the introduction of a further Pensions Increase measure, he told them that he would convey their representations to me. This he has done.

Dr. King: Is the Chancellor aware that many of the oldest of those pensioners have very meagre pensions, indeed; that they do not qualify for the basic national pension that is to be increased, and that they appreciate what the Government have done in previous Pensions Increase Acts but think that the Chancellor ought to do something to bring them more into line with pensioners who retire today?

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of that consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Staggering of Holidays

Mr. C. Johnson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received the report of the departmental committee dealing with the staggering of holidays, including the possible changing of the dates of the August and Whitsuntide Bank Holidays; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): My right hon. Friend is not yet ready to make a statement.

Mr. Johnson: Would the Minister ask his right hon. Friend whether, having regard to the wide public interest in this matter, he will consider having the Report published or, failing that, at least

have its contents brought to the attention of the British Travel and Holidays Association, which is in touch with all the interests affected, so that those people primarily concerned with the problem may know the Committee's recommendations?

Mr. Erroll: I will see that those suggestions are passed on to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. H. Wilson: In addition to publishing this Report—and, clearly, the Government cannot have anything to hide with this—would the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that this very valuable proposal, which has been running for many years, has no hope of becoming effective unless he consults his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer through the University Grants Committee, to ensure that there is a change in the practice and timing of public examinations affecting schools? Is he aware that until the G.E.C. timetable is altered, there is no real hope of having holidays staggered?

Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend does understand the importance of the educational aspects of the matter.

Price Maintenance

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to implement the recommendation of the Consumer Advisory Council that a social survey be set up by the Board of Trade to inquire into consumers' views on price maintenance.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's statement made on the 26th January in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin).

Mr. Noel-Baker: May I ask the hon. Gentleman two related questions? First, I understand that his Department has canvassed the views of retailers and manufacturers, that their replies were received last October and are being analysed now: when is a conclusion to be reached on them? Secondly, if the Department has canvassed the views of retailers and manufacturers, is it not


reasonable that it should also seek to ascertain the views of consumers, and why does he turn down flat the suggestion of the Consumer Advisory Council that a social survey should be used in that very useful way?

Mr. Macpherson: In reply to the hon. Gentleman's first supplementary question, I cannot say exactly when a decision will be reached. In reply to his second supplementary question, my right hon. Friend is in touch with consumer associations, but there is a distinct difficulty in carrying out a social survey, partly because of the time that will be involved, and partly because of the need to frame questions that will give useful answers.

Council of Industrial Design

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the President of the Board of Trade what increase he proposes to make in the grant-in-aid for the year 1961–62 to be paid to the Council of Industrial Design.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Proposals will shortly be laid before the House seeking approval for a grant of £240,000 to be made to the Council in 1961–62. The grant for the current year was £4,000 less, but it included a special nonrecurring capital grant of £23,500.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am not quite certain from that reply whether the Council is getting less or more. Which is it getting? Is not the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the real increase is certainly justified by the very valuable work done by the Council, of great importance to British industry and British exports?

Mr. Macpherson: I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said about the valuable work done by the Council, and that is why, effectively, it is being given £27,500 more than last year.

Anti-Dumping

Mr. Biggs - Davison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that the anti-dumping procedure is expeditious enough; and what improvements he has in mind.

Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend considers that the procedure for dealing with anti-dumping applications is as expeditious as it can be made consistently with our international obligations and the requirements of the 1957 Act.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many horticulturists in my constituency and in Essex are dissatisfied with the procedure, and will the Board of Trade at least try to improve it?

Mr. Erroll: I am aware of the difficulty in connection with horticulture. We do try to be as quick as we can in these urgent cases.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the times when the use of this machinery is most necessary are nearly always those which involve highly perishable produce suddenly arriving in floods from the Continent, and that tariffs really are not the best means? What we really want is a more stringent method than this to deal with critical periods in home production.

Mr. Erroll: I assure my hon. Friend that in horticultural cases we have acted quickly.

Mr. Ridsdale: Has my right hon. Friend been in touch with the Horticultural Marketing Council, and has it made suggestions to him on this matter?

Mr. Erroll: I should like to look into that.

Factory, Silloth

Mr. Symonds: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he refused permission for the building of a factory at Silloth, Cumberland.

Mr. Peart: asked the President of the Board of Trade what facilities were offered to Mr. Sydney Farr to promote a light engineering project in West Cumberland.

Mr. N. Macpherson: So far from refusing permission for the building of a factory for Mr. Farr at Silloth, my right hon. Friend has told him that he would consider building one for him. I understand, however, that Mr. Farr is not prepared to go ahead without financial assistance, and, as I have already told my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Whitelaw) unless the Board of Trade Advisory Committee makes a favourable recommendation my right hon. Friend cannot offer any.

Mr. Symonds: In view of what the Minister said about the permission for building a factory, would he, if Mr. Farr finds the building not suitable, be prepared to consider building on a smaller site at Cleator Moor'?

Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend would be willing to build a factory provided that the tenant was willing to go into it, but this tenant will not go into it without financial assistance.

Mr. Peart: Is the Minister aware that at a Press interview with Mr. Farr a statement was made that reflected on the Cumberland Development Council about the possibility of a factory in Maryport or Egremont? Will he give an assurance that the Development Council has given every assistance where possible?

Mr. Macpherson: Most certainly. The Development Council has been most helpful.

Export Credits

Mr. Berkeley: asked the President of the Board of Trade on how many and which contracts the Export Credits Department since its inception has had to make a payment owing to default; and what have been the losses or profits of the Exports Credits Guarantee Department for each year since its inception.

Mr. Erroll: From 1st April, 1949, to the end of last year the number of contracts on which claims were paid was 32,122. The loss or profit for any one year cannot be finally computed until all claims or recoveries have been settled. For example, money is still being recovered in respect of claims paid out before the war. Yearly underwriting balances are published in the annual report on trading accounts of Government Departments.

Mr. Berkeley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but may I ask if he is aware that in the constructional industry, with which I have some connection, there is considerable lack of confidence in this Department, and that exports are not fun if, first of all, one has to grapple with E.C.G.D., whose rates for overseas cover appear to be based on an unduly pessimistic assessment of conditions in overseas territories?

Mr. Erroll: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Advisory Council on Overseas Construction, under my chairmanship, will meet the day after tomorrow, when there will be full opportunity to discuss these matters.

Mr. Snow: As the losses mentioned appear to be completely negligible, will the right hon. Gentleman consider explaining these facilities in a more comprehensible form to smaller potential exporters?

Mr. Erroll: Claims paid out are by no means negligible; they amount to many millions of pounds.

Dearne Valley

Mr. Wainwright: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the lack of light industries in the Dearne Valley constituency area, he will give encouragement to manufacturers who are desirous of erecting plants by granting facilities under the Local Employment Act, 1960.

Mr. N. Macpherson: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend's powers under the Local Employment Act may be exercised only in those areas where a high rate of unemployment exists or is expected and is likely to persist. The Dearne Valley, I am glad to say, is not in this position. But my right hon. Friend would he willing to see some further suitable light industry in the area

Mr. Wainwright: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are several hundred unemployed men and women in the Dearne Valley division? In addition. there are bus-loads of women going to work thirty to forty miles away. There is also a pool of non-registered women labour within the division. As we are very short of light industries, will he consider helping as quickly as possible several firms which want to come to the division?

Mr. Macpherson: There are 320 new jobs in prospect, mostly for females. My right hon. Friend would be prepared to give industrial development certificates for female-employing projects which wanted to go to the district and which could not be steered to development districts.

Australia

Sir Harmar Nicholls: asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he 'has made of the possible effect of the proposed export tax concession in Australia upon. British trade with Australia.

Mr. Erroll: None, Sir. The Australian Government have not disclosed what the proposals are which they are examining.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is it not gratifying that the Australian Government appear to have more hope that such a scheme can be brought into operation than the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Could not my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade suggest to the Treasury that it ought to keep in step with Australia in this matter before turning down out of hand any suggestions for export tax concessions?

Mr. Erroll: Yes. Sir. I think that I should say to my hon. Friend that the Australian Prime Minister, in making a statement on this subject, was careful to point out that any proposals should not conflict with international obligations.

Cotton Industry (Reorganisation Scheme)

Mr. Thornton: asked the President of the Beard of Trade if, in view of the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report, dated 25th January, 1961, he will institute an inquiry into the 5,000 looms unaccounted for in the Weaving Reorganisation Scheme and which may involve as much as £250,000 of Treasury funds and funds raised by levy authorised by Parliament.

Mr. N. Macpherson: No, Sir. The Cotton Board has administered the Weaving Reorganisation Scheme strictly in accordance with the Order as approved by Parliament and compensation has been paid only for looms actually scrapped under the Scheme. My right hon. Friend does not accept the view that there has been payment of compensation without a corresponding effective elimination of capacity.

Mr. Thornton: In view of the uncertainty created by the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report, would it not be in the interests of the special committee of the Cotton Board, which I am sure has done a difficult job with great

efficiency, that there should be an inquiry into this matter?

Mr. Macpherson: I do not think there is any uncertainty. It was known that there were some looms in store at the time when the scheme was made, but the scheme did not provide for compensation for looms in store. Some of the looms have perhaps been brought into operation because of the upsurge in demand. The Board of Trade's accounting officer is to appear before the Public Accounts Committee on 2nd March, and there will be an opportunity of going further into the matter then.

Mr. Thornton: In view of the cases which I have called to the Parliamentary Secretary's attention, is it not necessary to have an investigation now, because, I repeat, a doubt emerges from the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report.

Mr. Macpherson: As I say, I think that there will be an opportunity of clearing up this doubt on 2nd March.

Industrial Development, Mid-Wales

Mr. Watkins: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to bring to the notice of industrialists that grants are available from the Development Fund for development in rural areas; to what extent he is doing this to induce industries to come into mid-Wales; and with what results.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Grants from the Development Fund are not available in the development districts, the areas for which my right hon. Friend is chiefly concerned to find employment. But the Department brings the possibility of obtaining a grant from the Fund to the notice of any industrialist who, although unable to go to a development district, is prepared to set up in a rural area in mid-Wales.

Mr. Watkins: In what way does the hon. Gentleman's Department bring this to the attention of industrialists, because I understand that it is not mentioned in the literature issued by his Department?

Mr. Macpherson: Everybody who wants to build a new factory or an extension to a factory has to apply to the Board of Trade for an industrial development certificate.

Mr. Watkins: Why is it that this information is made available in literature for Northern Ireland but not for places like mid-Wales?

Mr. Macpherson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is brought to the attention of industrialists, although this particular assistance is the concern of the Treasury rather than of the Board of Trade.

Coke Works, Langley Park

Mr. Ainsley: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the By-product Coke Works at Langley Park, in the North-West Durham constituency, has been scheduled to close down in March, involving some 250 workers; and what alternative work he expects will be available for these men.

Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend is aware of this proposed closure. He understands that, while 150 workers will become redundant, there are sufficient vacancies at neighbouring coke works to absorb them all.

Mr. Ainsley: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this is the second such plant which has closed in the last few months and the fourth such plant which has closed within the last two or three years in my constituency, apart from the mines, which are also closing? What does the President of the Board of Trade intend to do about providing work for the unemployed male population in the area? In the debate yesterday, a Government spokesman said that some progress has been made. Is this the sort of progress that we can expect?

Mr. Macpherson: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. Friend is extremely sympathetic about these closures. He is also aware that industrialists have been to see sites in the area. It is for the industrialists themselves to choose whether they should go there or elsewhere.

Decimal Coinage

Mr. Proudfoot: asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made as to how much decimal coinage would help the export trade.

Mr. Erroll: The Government are carefully considering the question of decimal

currency, as my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary explained in answer to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). last Thursday. The possible advantages to our export trade is one of the matters which we will take into account.

Mr. Proudfoot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Commonwealth countries are changing to decimal coinage and that soon we will be the only country left in the Commonwealth without decimal coinage?

Mr. Erroll: We are aware of that change. We are also aware of the advantages of the duodecimal system.

Export Trade

Mr. Woodburn: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that many small firms with specialised products fear the risks of experiment and lack experience of exporting; and whether he will set up an organisation to encourage, help, and guarantee such firms in order to increase United Kingdom export trade.

Mr. Erroll: Yes, Sir, but small firms who do not wish to export direct can easily be put in touch with merchants who are familiar with all the problems. If the hon. Member knows of any small firm which is thinking of exporting and would like advice on the various ways of going about it, I hope he will urge them to get in touch with the nearest regional office of the Board.

Mr. Woodburn: Why should it be my job to get small firms to export? Is it not the job of the Board of Trade to try to find small firms which are capable of exporting and to give them such encouragement and guidance as it can?

Mr. Erroll: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is precisely what we are doing. I shall be glad to explain the matter in more detail at the end of the debate on this subject tomorrow night.

Government-Financed Factories

Mr. Slater: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications have been received by his Department for Government-financed factories in the United Kingdom; how many of these have been from the North-East; and how many from the North-East have been agreed to.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Under the Local Employment Act, 1960, which does not apply to Northern Ireland, 54 applications have been received for new Government-financed factories. Nine of these have been for factories in the North-East development districts. Of these, one was withdrawn by the applicant at an early stage and one was withdrawn after approval had been given. The other seven have been approved and remain firm.

Mr. Slater: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Members representing constituencies in the North-East would be more satisfied if the President of the Board of Trade gave more positive assistance concerning the unemployment needs and requirements of our people?

Mr. Macpherson: I am not certain that I caught everything that the hon. Gentleman said, but I assure him that my right hon. Friend is well aware of the needs of the North-East. He has just paid a further visit there.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a 60,000 square feet Government-financed factory standing empty at Stockton-on-Tees? What is he doing about getting a new tenant for it?

Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend is doing all he can to attract a tenant to the factory.

Mr. Popplewell: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there are still 37,000 unemployed people in this area? How does he tie up his statement last week that he hopes to provide work for 14,500 people with his reply today that there are only seven projects in being? Will he take a serious view of this terrific problem in the North-East and do something energetic about it?

Mr. Macpherson: The Question asked about new Government-financed factories. There are extensions as well. There have been 31 applications from the North-East for extensions, 24 of which have been approved.

DISARMAMENT

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Prime Minister if, at the forthcoming Prime Ministers' Conference, he will put forward proposals for a Commonwealth

initiative towards multilateral disarmament.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): While it has never been our practice at these Commonwealth meetings to seek to arrive at concerted programmes of action, it is my hope that our coming discussions on important current issues including disarmament will prove fruitful.

Mr. Stonehouse: I thank the Prime Minister for that reply which indicates that he will at last, perhaps, take action to relieve the crushing burden of defence on our economy, but will he agree that it would be valuable to have a debate in the House in order that he may hear the opinion of the House before the talks take place?

The Prime Minister: That is not a matter for me.

UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA

Mr. Brockway: asked the Prime Minister what representations he has made to Prime Ministers of Commonwealth member States regarding membership of the Commonwealth by the Union of South Africa when it becomes a Republic; and what replies he has received.

The Prime Minister: Any consultations I may have with other Commonwealth Prime Ministers are confidential.

Mr. Brockway: Will the Prime Minister agree that this confidential trick is now being taken rather far? While it is important that there should be confidence in conversations, should not the House know what policies are when they deal with fundamental matters like this?

The Prime Minister: Our policy on this matter will be determined in consultation with our Commonwealth partners.

Mr. Dugdale: Although each member of the Commonwealth has a perfect right to conduct its affairs as it sees best, is there not a standard below which a country applying for membership of the Commonwealth should not sink, and has not South Africa sunk below that standard?

The Prime Minister: This question will be discussed by the Prime Ministers. and it would be quite wrong for me to give any account of any preliminary talks.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE PRESS

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister what person with knowledge of newspapers in Scotland he has asked to be a member of the Royal Commission on the Press.

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Prime Minister if he is yet in a position to announce the names of the Royal Commission on the Press.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Prime Minister if he will now announce the names of the members of the proposed Royal Commission on the Press.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Prime Minister how many people have been invited to serve on the Royal Commission on the Press.

The Prime Minister: I am not yet able to announce the names of the members of the Commission.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that, particularly in Scotland, journalists and printers are very anxious about their future? Will he bear that in mind when he appoints the Scottish member of the Commission, and will he take full account of the further fact that the monopoly tendency in Scotland has become so great that it has swallowed up not only daily and evening papers but local weekly papers as well?

The Prime Minister: I shall bear all that in mind.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the Prime Minister aware of Laurence Scott's dictum that nine-tenths of newspaper publishing is light engineering, and, in instituting this inquiry into the practicalities of newspaper publishing, will he appoint someone who knows something about that side of newspaper production?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for that suggestion.

Mr. Lipton: Is it not obvious that there will be no opportunity for either Government action or Parliamentary

discussion, apart from a few selected Members of Parliament on the radio and television, on the problems involved, and that in the circumstances the employees adversely affected will to some extent be justified if they are forced to contemplate industrial action to protect their interests in the meantime?

The Prime Minister: That is another question quite separate from the purpose of the Commission.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the trouble due to the fact that the Prime Minister cannot find anyone to go on the Commission?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The trouble is that I am trying to get the very best people to go on it.

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Prime Minister what proposals he will make to President Kennedy for the creation of a political authority to control the military and diplomatic activities of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir, beyond the present organisation, that is, the North Atlantic Council.

Mr. Woodburn: Does not the Prime Minister agree that a Europe divided into two economic groups with no political head of this organisation creates a very great disadvantage from the point of view of co-ordinated activities? Would it not be better from the public point of view if there were a political head of the N.A.T.O. authority?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that N.A.T.O. goes beyond Europe. It includes both Canada and the United States.

MR. CHOU EN-LAI

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to invite Mr. Chou En-lai to visit this country.

The Prime Minister: I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion, but I do not think that the time is yet ripe for such a visit.

Mr. Mayhew: The Government have more than once stated that they are considering ways of breaking the complete isolation between this country and China. What is being done?

The Prime Minister: The Question asks whether I will arrange for a visit. These visits need careful preparation and good timing.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would it not be a good idea to start the preparation now by making informal approaches?

The Prime Minister: As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, this matter was debated on 12th December, and the views of the British Government have been made quite clear.

Miss Lee: Does the Prime Minister appreciate what a serious effect there is on the morale of the British people if they are given the impression that no initiative ever comes from their own country and they have to wait to see what America or some other country does?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady thinks that that is a fair summary of the last few years, I must take it from her.

MR. LUMUMBA (DEATH)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister what official message of sympathy he has sent to the widow of Mr. Patrice Lumumba, first Prime Minister of the Congo.

The Prime Minister: Although I am informed that it would not have been in accordance with custom to have sent an official message of sympathy, the hon. Member's Question allows me once more to express how deeply Her Majesty's Government deplore the circumstances that led to Mr. Lumumba's death. May I add how much we also deplore the report received yesterday of the execution of six other notabilities, who appear to have been the victims of a bitter intertribal warfare.

Mr. Warbey: All hon. and right hon. Members will join with the Prime Minister in what he has said, but can he say why the usual custom was not followed in this case? Also, why was

it the first reaction of the Foreign Office to issue the very cold and unfeeling statement that the death of Mr. Lumumba added one more complication to an already complicated situation?

The Prime Minister: I think that that may have been somewhat of an understatement. This is a very difficult problem, as the House knows, and hon. Members will, no doubt, have seen the report of the action taken by the Security Council yesterday.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the Prime Minister confirm that he was not influenced in this matter by the unwillingness of Mr. Khrushchev to send a telegram to Mme. Nagy, the widow of the late Prime Minister of Hungary?

WORLD FOOD SUPPLIES

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister whether, during his forthcoming visit to the United States of America, he will discuss with President Kennedy a joint policy to enable world food shortages to be relieved by extension of farm technology, to eliminate disease, and to enable the poorer nations to benefit from new knowledge.

The Prime Minister: These are aspects of the world economic situation which might certainly come within the discussion of international problems which I hope to have with President Kennedy.

Mr. Rankin: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that in his State of the Union Message the President of the United States said that he is prepared to issue an invitation to the Soviet Union and to scientists of all countries to engage in such a programme as is indicated in the Question? Does the Prime Minister include China in all countries? If he would include China in that category, will he urge that point of view on President Kennedy?

The Prime Minister: It is difficult enough to answer supplementaries on statements which I am supposed to have made. I hesitate to answer supplementaries on statements attributed to the President.

Mr. Rankin: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman if he himself would include China in the expression "all countries"

The Prime Minister: I cannot be asked to interpret a statement which I did not make.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of discussing vigorous and generous participation in the Freedom from Hunger Campaign of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations by both Britain and the United States?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and, as I think the movement for refugees showed last year, we have a very good record in these matters.

NORTHERN RHODESIA CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Prime Minister what is the nature of his latest communication to Sir Roy Welensky regarding the Northern Rhodesian constitutional conference; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Communications between Commonwealth Prime Ministers are confidential. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies will be making a statement after Questions today.

Mr. Donnelly: Notwithstanding the statement at the end of Questions, the Prime Minister is the man whose policies and position are on trial at the moment in Africa. Why has his wind of change now become a change of wind?

The Prime Minister: When the House has heard the Colonial Secretary's statement, I think that the hon. Member will. perhaps, take a rather more generous view of the matter.

Mr. Gaitskell: May we take it that the statement will cover not merely the proposals of the Government for an extension of the franchise in Northern Rhodesia but the whole situation in the last few weeks in which, on the one hand, Sir Roy Welensky's Party boycotted the Conference and, on the other hand, the Prime Minister seemed to be having back-stage or back-door negotiations with a member of Sir Roy Welensky's Cabinet?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Any Commonwealth Prime Minister has a

perfect right to communicate with me on any subject.

Mr. Gaitskell: If that is the case, why does not the right hon. Gentleman answer my hon. Friend's question instead of referring him to a statement which evidently will not answer it?

The Prime Minister: While any Prime Minister has the right to communicate with me on any subject, he has also the right to expect that I should keep private conversations confidential.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a short business statement.
We have looked into the points raised on the Consolidated Fund Bill in the early hours of this morning and find that there is a mistake in Clause 2 of the Bill. The Government propose to put this right. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, a verbal Amendment will be proposed on the Third Reading of the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am advised by the authorities of the House that this is the correct procedure to adopt.
As there is some urgency for the Bill, we propose to take it as first Order tomorrow, Wednesday, followed by the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill. We hope that it will be possible to obtain both these Measures. The other three Bills announced for consideration tomorrow will not now be proceeded with.
It may be convenient for me to inform the House that, following discussions through the usual channels, a second day will be given for the debate on defence. The debate will take place on Monday and Tuesday of next week.

Mr. Speaker: If the House will allow me to intervene to make an apology, the error in the Bill which gave rise to much discussion in the small hours this morning is a fault for which I, in the Chair, have to take responsibility, because the Bill was printed under the authority of the House. I apologise to the House for the error.

Mr. Gaitskell: We are all glad that the Government propose to correct the


mistake in the Bill. I am sure that the Leader of the House appreciates that if it had not been for the energy and assiduity of the Opposition this mistake might never have been discovered and a highly embarrassing situation might have been created in the courts.
You have taken responsibility for the error, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether it would be appropriate for us to raise these matters with you now or on further consideration of the Bill, but I am a little puzzled by this. I leave it to you, Mr. Speaker, as to whether you deal with the matter now. As I understand, you say that the Bill was printed under the authority of the House. What we do not know is the form in which it was submitted to the printer: in other words, whether the mistake was a printer's error in the true sense of that word, different from the draft as submitted or handed in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Treasury, the Financial Secretary, or whoever it was. Perhaps you would clear that up.

Mr. Speaker: Just now, I used the wrong word. The draft has its origin in circumstances for which I am responsible. The printer accurately printed the draft. That had the effect of producing the mistake.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am still a little surprised. I understood that the Bill was submitted by Ministers of the Crown and I do not see why you, Mr. Speaker, should take responsibility for a Bill which is theirs. As I have said, however, if it would be more appropriate to discuss the matter at greater leisure—I know that an important statement by the Colonial Secretary is about to be made—we would be happy to leave it until then.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends can discuss the matter at another time. I have no wish to involve the Chair in any verbal interchange between the parties. I merely thought it desirable to apologise for that for which I am responsible in this context.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you are prepared to accept my suggestion that it would be more convenient to take up the matter a little later. Perhaps, therefore, we might ask the Leader of the House

whether, at some appropriate stage, he will explain more fully exactly what happened. We are all a little puzzled as to how the mistake came to be made and whose responsibility it was.
I should like to put another question to the right hon. Gentleman. He states that it is proposed to take the Consolidated Fund Bill as first Order tomorrow. He will, of course, be aware that in discussion of the Bill, we are concerned with the question whether Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill. I presume, therefore, that we shall proceed to consider that matter further, but on the basis that the Clause is wrongly drafted. Is that correct?

Mr. Butler: The exact position is that we shall resume discussion on the Bill on the Question, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill". Then, on reaching Third Reading, we should make the verbal Amendment, which has been done according to precedent on a previous occasion and which, I understand, is quite in order, but which, of course, is a matter for the Chair.
As regards the Bill itself, I said to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends last night that we were all learning. It is a peculiarity that the Consolidated Fund Bill and Appropriation Bill, are drafted by the Public Bill Office. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you have been generous in acknowledging where the responsibility for this comparatively minor error lay. I think that, with this explanation, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we should proceed with discussion of the Bill.

Mr. Gaitskell: Like the Leader of the House we continue to learn. We learn, for instance, that although, apparently, it is quite out of order for any Amendment to be made in Committee on the Bill, according to the right hon. Gentleman it can be made on Third Reading. which is strange, and which we shall wish to. probe further when we discuss the Bill tomorrow.
Is it not strange that we should have to consider whether Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill on the basis of an erroneous draft of the Clause? How can we do that? It is a difficult situation for us. We are discussing a Clause which, clearly, is wrongly drafted. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to comment on that.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: Leave it to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). He does it better.

Mr. Gaitskell: Instead of grumbling, hon. Members should be grateful to the Opposition for rescuing the Government from a difficult situation. Nobody in the Government discovered this mistake. It was the Opposition who discovered it.
Does the Leader of the House think that it will be possible to continue the discussion on the Question, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill" when it took three hours to dispose of the similar Question on Clause 1, and of the Third Reading, in which discussion will be much freer, before 7 o'clock? The right hon. Gentleman had better have another look at the timetable.

Mr. Butler: It is the Government's intention to obtain the Bill because it is necessary in the public interest that legal authority should be given for the payments and the national chest replenished. It is vital that the Bill should get through. The right hon. Gentleman has a lot of experience in these matters from his period as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that if we come to the Bill and take it reasonably, we can make good progress tomorrow.

Mr. Mellish: In view of what happened last night, and the fact that we spent so much time debating whether we should be allowed to discuss the Bill. is it not right that, since it has been withdrawn because of the inefficiency of the Government, we should now start all over again and begin where we came in with the debate on the Bill, including new argument on Clause 1?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. It is not the Government's intention to withdraw the Bill. Their intention is to proceed with the Bill and to proceed with it at the point at which we left off, namely, discussion of the Question, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Driberg: Before making his announcement today, did the right hon. Gentleman consider carefully the point which troubled a number of us last night? I refer to the fact that the Chairman of Ways and Means had given what appeared to be a definite Ruling that the Bill could not be amended in any way. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that towards the end of the proceedings

early this morning, he said that he was "reserving the position of the Chair," that some of us queried his right to do this, and that he then seemed to modify a little what he had said about reserving the position of the Chair. Can the right hon. Gentleman make a further statement on that, too?

Mr. Butler: I have ascertained in the time available to me that it is in order to make a verbal Amendment of this character on Third Reading. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It is a matter for the Chair. I said in my business statement that with your permission, Mr. Speaker, a verbal Amendment would be proposed on Third Reading. The decision on that matter we must leave to the Chair.

Mr. Driberg: What about the Ruling of the Chairman of Ways and Means?

Mr. K. Robinson: The Leader of the House has told us that the debate will be resumed tomorrow on the Question, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill." He has already told us that it is now acknowledged on all sides that Clause 2 is in error. May we take it, therefore, that he will advise the Commititee to reject the Question?

Mr. Butler: The Government will support in every way they can the passage of Clause 2 and the rest of the Bill.

Mr. Driberg: I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman, but he would not answer my question. What about the Ruling which the Chairman of Ways and Means gave?

Mr. Butler: I cannot answer for Rulings given by the Chair—[HON. MEMBERS: "No?"] I can only draft my statement, and as I understand, it is in order for a verbal Amendment to be moved on Third Reading. I have done my best to ascertain that, and I have said that, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, that is what we propose to do.

Mr. Gaitskell: This is a most vague situation. In the ordinary way, when an Amendment is made in Committee, there is a Report stage of the Bill, when the House can consider the matter. If this Amendment is only on Third Reading there cannot be a further opportunity of considering it on Report. Can the right


hon. Gentleman throw some light on this? Why this extraordinary procedure which appears to be the rule in this case and in no other case at all?

Mr. Butler: I have also ascertained that on some occasions the Officers of the House have altered mistakes of a verbal character before a Bill went to another place. On this occasion it is proposed, with the approval of the authorities of the House, to make a verbal Amendment on Third Reading of the Bill. We are dealing with a verbal Amendment, which, incidentally, does not make as much difference to the Bill as hon. Members imagine. It is our intention to proceed in that way.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Paget: With respect, when the right hon. Gentleman says that it has been customary for the Table to alter mistakes of this sort, surely that takes place only when it is a printer's error which does not appear in the draft. There is no authority to correct an error in the draft itself. Is that not so?

Mr. Butler: I really cannot make any further statement on the matter—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—except that I have ascertained that it will be in order to make a verbal Amendment of this character on Third Reading.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that we can debate this matter now, but if there are points of order I must hear them. Mr. Ross.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order. So that we may prepare ourselves—

Mr. Tiley: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is already addressing me on a point of order.

Mr. Ross: Could you guide us, Mr. Speaker, so that we may adequately prepare ourselves for tomorrow's proceedings. Will this Amendment be debatable?

Mr. Speaker: I can rule on this matter only when the Amendment is tendered to me. I think that that is the right way to do it.

Mr. Tiley: On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to question your Ruling—I would not dream of doing that—but there are hon. Members on this side of the House who are rising while these matters are being discussed. Many speeches are being made on the opposite benches. I only wish to draw your attention to the fact that some of us on this side wish to put points—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have difficulty in hearing the point of order which the hon. Member is putting.

Mr. Tiley: I wish to address a question to my right hon. Friend through you, Sir—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member rose to a point of order. It was on that footing I was listening to him. Mr. Lee.

Mr. Lee: On a point of order. Could you define for us, Mr. Speaker, the reasons why, on this occasion, the Chair would rule that an Amendment would be admissible on Third Reading whereas on other occasions there has been need to recommit a Bill in its entirety? For future reference it would be as well if the House knew precisely why we are now to be allowed to make an Amendment on Third Reading instead of the Bill having to be recommitted.

Mr. Speaker: This matter refers to a verbal Amendment. It has not yet been submitted to me. I do not propose to rule about it till that moment. I am sure that that is right.

Mr. Gaitskell: In that case, as I understand it, you are not yet saying, Mr. Speaker, whether the Amendment which, we are told, will be moved, is a verbal Amendment or not. Then, presumably, it is a matter which will have to be discussed tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: What I heard the Leader of the House say—unless I was guilty of an inaccuracy of hearing—was that what was to be tendered was a verbal Amendment. I do not officially know what happened in Committee. I have read the Bill, from which I cannot help suspecting that the character of the Amendment which might be required would be a verbal one.

Mr. Gaitskell: This is a matter on which there could be more than one point of view. Obviously, it would be a very dangerous thing if the rules of order were so stretched, under the guise that a printer's error had occurred, as to make what would be, in fact, a change of substance.

Mr. Speaker: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that there there will be no question of stretching the rules of order improperly. I will study the matter and come to what I conceive to be the right ruling upon it when it arises.

Mr. Lipton: On a point of order. Will you, Mr. Speaker, for the guidance of hon. Members, please be good enough to define the difference between a verbal Amendment, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and a non-verbal Amendment? I have never been able to distinguish one from the other.

Mr. Speaker: Without discourtesy, I do not think that I will.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. lain Macleod): rose—

Mr. Speaker: I understood that the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) was rising to a point of order.

Mr. Tiley: I wish now merely to ask my right hon. Friend—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: It must be a point of order or nothing.

Mr. Manuel: I want to ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Many of us on this side were having extreme difficulty in the early hours of this morning dealing with points we have been discussing just now. The Leader of the House has said that we are to resume consideration of the Consolidated Fund Bill tomorrow on the Question, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill". He has admitted that the error contained in Clause 2 is to remain. If we adopt the course which, he has informed the House, he will adopt tomorrow, how can we debate that which is in error and which, had things been otherwise, could have led to Amendments being put down in Committee? We have had no opportunity of doing that, and the Clause was in error as drafted.

Mr. Speaker: I understand what the hon. Member wishes, but there is no discourtesy on my part in pointing out to the hon. Member the difficulties which attach to my ruling about things which happen in Committee or the state of affairs in Committee. But that I cannot do.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I understood the Leader of the House said that he proposed that the House should take the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill after the discussion of the Consolidated Fund Bill. It may be that discussion of the point being debated just now will take the rest of tomorrow. In that event, the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill may be pushed out of tomorrow altogether, or, alternatively, be made to suffer the fate which white fish and herring industries Bills always seem to suffer in this House, namely, that they come on at a very late hour of the day.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. and learned Member assist by explaining what is the point of order on which he rose?

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. May I ask the Leader of the House—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but a question addressed to the Leader of the House is not a point of order.

Mr. Woodburn: On a point of order. Is it not the case that the Leader of the House gave a business answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and that the first part dealt with the question that has just been discussed and the second part dealt with the White Fish and Herring Industry Bill? Would it not be in order, therefore, for my hon. and learned' Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) and others who are interested in that Bill to ask questions of the Leader of the House on that further business?

Mr. Speaker: I will tell the House my difficulty. I thought that questions upon a statement would have to come to an end at some time or else we would not get on with our business, and in pursuit of that I had indicated that I would' only hear hon. Members at this point on points of order. Had the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeenshire, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) caught my eye earlier he would have been in order,


but I do not think that I can allow him to continue now in view of what I have said

Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I have not sought to catch your eye on a point of order. Until now I have not uttered the phrase at all in the last few minutes. Is it not a little hard on hon. Members who genuinely want to put questions to the Leader of the House, arising out of his statement and his evasive answers, that they are debarred from doing so because they do not follow the common practice of saying, "On point of order" when they have no point of order?

Mr. Speaker: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for expressing a sentiment of that character. On the other hand, I would ask the House to take the view that we have other business to do and that perhaps some of these matters of substance may be discussed at another time. I feel that we ought to pass on from this question.

Mr. Driberg: In that case may I ask the Leader of the House, very briefly—thank you, Mr. Speaker—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: My difficulty is that I should be unfair as between 'an hon. Member and an hon. Member if I allowed myself to indulge my wish to please all hon. Members at this stage.

NORTHERN RHODESIAN CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. lain Macleod): I will, with permission, make a statement on the Northern Rhodesian Constitutional Conference which concluded at Lancaster House on Friday, 17th February.
A record of the proceedings is being published as a White Paper, Command No. 1295, and is now available in the Vote Office. Copies of this statement will also be available.
The White Paper makes clear how far apart the views of the political parties in Northern Rhodesia regarding constitutional change were and have remained. Accordingly, it became necessary for me to put forward a plan on behalf of Her

Majesty's Government. The details are given in the White Paper and I would here only refer to the main features.
First, there should be an enlarged Legislative Council containing about 45 elected members. The Legislative Council should be composed of three elements —a number of members elected by voters on the Upper Roll, an equal number of members elected by voters on the Lower Roll, and a substantial number of "national" seats in which candidates would have to obtain some measure of support from both Rolls. A possible division would be 15 on the Upper Roll, 15 on the Lower Roll and 15 national seats.
In the national constituencies it is contemplated that to qualify for election candidates should obtain the same prescribed minimum percentage of the votes cast on each Roll; and that the voting power of the two Rolls would be equalised by averaging the percentage of votes cast on each Roll which is secured by each candidate. There are obviously points on this part of the scheme which will require further consideration.
In addition to the elected members. there would be up to six official members; and one or two nominated members might be added.
Her Majesty's Government feel that this plan taken as a whole would achieve the objective of securing a substantially increased number of African members on the Council and, at the same time, maintain the principle of a non-racial political approach in which political parties are obliged to seek support from both races.
An outline scheme for franchise qualifications on the Lower Roll, which would, it is estimated, enable about 70,000 Africans to be enfranchised on this Roll is given in the White Paper. It is not intended that there should be any major changes in the qualifications for voters on the Upper Roll, but the alterations which we have in mind might result in between 1,500 and 2,000 African voters becoming eligible for the Upper Roll in addition to those now qualifying.
Under the present responsibilities of the Territorial Government the Executive Council would consist of three or four officials and six unofficials. The Governor would be Chairman and the Council would be advisory to him. In


making his appointments, the Governor would consult with and pay due regard to the person or persons who appear to him to command the widest measure of support in the legislature. The unofficials would include at least two African and at least two non-African members of the Legislative Council. In addition, Parliamentary Secretaries might be appointed.
The Conference agreed that a House of Chiefs should be established in Northern Rhodesia and full details of this proposal are given in the White Paper.
I informed the Conference that in the view of Her Majesty's Government the new constitution should include a Bill of Rights designed to safeguard the rights to individuals and the interests of minorities; and that consideration should also be given to the creation of a Constitutional Council to afford protection against unfair discrimination or other contravention of the rights guaranteed to individuals.
The application of the provisions of the United Kingdom's Government's plan to Barotseland will be discussed with the Paramount Chief.
Naturally, many matters still remain to be settled; for example, the delimitation of constituencies, the way in which national members are to be returned and matters relating to franchise qualifications.
I am asking the Governor to give early consideration to these matters and to bring into consultation with him the political groups in Northern Rhodesia. He will then put forward his recommendations and Her Majesty's Government will advise Her Majesty on the constitutional changes to be introduced.

Mr. Callaghan: I think that it would be a hard-hearted man who did not sympathise with the Colonial Secretary in the difficulties that he has had to contend with over the last weeks, and not the least of them has been the activities of the Prime Minister.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman three questions? First, in view of the gravity of the situation in Northern Rhodesia, I am surprised that there was no reference in the right hon. Gentleman's statement to the state of public safety and security there. May I ask

what information he has from the acting Governor about the position, and specifically whether he has put himself in a position to be able to deal with any violence or trouble, if it should unfortunately arise, with his own resources and without the need to call upon Federal troops?
Secondly, why is it that the right hon. Gentleman has departed from the simple proposal recommended by the majority of the Monckton Commission for a majority of African members in the Legislative Assembly, in view of the fact that when the Federal Conference was under review the delegates attending it were led to believe that an African majority represented the views of the Colonial Secretary at that time?
Thirdly, in view of the gravity of the situation, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it was an error on his part not to have disclosed the details of the franchise and of the constituency boundaries to the delegates attending the Conference? As so much of the business is, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman's own statement, unfinished, may I put a plea to him that instead of leaving this to the Governor he should now recall the Conference here and put to the delegates who are willing to attend—and I hope that all of them will come—the details of the franchise which he has in mind and the nature of the constituency boundaries that he intends to draw so that thus they can see the picture as a whole?
Would not that be better than leaving the situation in the state it is, in which there is uncertainty on all sides, in which the Government have lost the confidence of every one of the major parties attending or not attending this Conference, and allowing a situation to develop in which delegates will return to Northern Rhodesia without any tempering influence that might be felt in this country, and we may have a great explosion there?

Mr. Macleod: On the hon. Member's first general observation, let me say that I have never, and I never will, put a plan before the House for any Colonial Territory which is not my own. I am quite ready on this plan to accept any criticisms there may be, but this plan is and remains a plan which I think is the


right plan for Northern Rhodesia. I may add that in working out the plan I have had very great assistance—and I am delighted to acknowledge it—from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
The hon. Member mentioned three specific points. First, he raised the question of security, which we discussed in a Private Notice Question recently. On the whole, the reports which I have had from Northern Rhodesia—and I have had them daily—are reassuring on this matter. The action of calling up two battalions of European territorial federal troops had a reassuring effect. Naturally. Her Majesty's Government have responsibility in this matter, and so have the Governments in the Federation.
The hon. Gentleman then referred to the Monckton Report. It is true that a majority of the Monckton Commission said that there should be a majority of Africans on the Legislative Council, but he will also remember the Monckton recommendation, as far as internal structure was concerned, that there should be parity, and that within that parity there should be parity for Northern Rhodesia.
The objection I have to the main recommendation of the Monckton Report is that it is purely a racial one—in other words, that we should set up a certain number, perhaps 30 Africans and 30 whites facing each other. I thought that the note of reservation was the weightier point and had some points in company with this plan.
The hon. Member's third point was the question of the finality of the Conference. It is never possible—and he errs in this respect—to reach finality at these conferences where constituency boundaries are changed. I will give him the appropriate White Papers on the Kenya Conference, the British Guiana Conference. the Nigeria Conferences, and the Nyasaland Conference, and if he consults them he will find that in all these cases delimitation of constituencies and allied matters were left to a working party. It is not possible that a conference should do this.
When the hon. Gentleman says that there should be consultation, I agree with him. These consultations will take place with all the political parties, and share his hope that they will be with

both those who attended the conference and those who did not attend. I think that these talks are far better carried out in Lusaka by the Governor, who, as I said, will then report to Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Callaghan: Is not the fundamental difference, between this conference and the other constitutional conferences to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, that delegates to those other conferences went home having agreed to work out details? In this case, the basic difficult that he is up against is that delegates are withdrawing without having agreed to the basic Constitution?
Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that one of the main difficulties of the delegates who attended was that he refused to disclose to them the details of the franchise? I leave constituency boundaries on one side for the moment. Why did he not tell them what the franchise was?
Further to the question of parity and racial representation, may I ask whether it is not the case that in Nyasaland there is to be an African majority? is he not introducing a quite irrelevant consideration in speaking of the federal position in relation to Northern Rhodesia? Does he intend that the Africans should have a majority in this new Legislative Assembly or not, for it is upon that that his troubles will depend?

Mr. Macleod: I will answer that last question straight away. It shows that the hon. Member has failed to grasp this scheme. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] That is so. The whole point of having national numbers of this sort is that one should neither enshrine nor have a European or an African majority, but that there should be these two blocs—if that is how they will be called in the end—founded on the upper and the lower rolls, and that the national seats should be open to people to put up their own candidates, who may be of any colour, in order to attract the middle vote that will be essential in this case.

Mr. Callaghan: Bogus.

Mr. Macleod: It is not true by any means that in the previous cases I mentioned there was agreement. In the case of Northern Rhodesia, I am right in saying that it has been necessary—and


this includes 1958—to impose all the constitutional settlements that there have been.
As I think the hon. Member will realise if he reads the White Paper, and, in particular, the first speech I made, which is printed in full, in December last year, and if he follows the reactions of the different parties, which are summarised. he will see that the two points of view were so far apart that the only thing to do was for Her Majesty's Government to come to their own conclusions on what was best and right for all the peoples in Northern Rhodesia, and that is what we have tried to do.

Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear whether he regards this plan as being in line with the fundamental principles announced by his predecessor in the House on the 27th November, 1958, bearing in mind that in that previous constitution there were 18 multi. racial seats and four racial seats?

Mr. Callaghan: They were all bogus.

Mr. Turton: As far as one can gather, under the plan my right hon. Friend is putting forward, there are to be 15 multiracial seats and 30 racial seats.

Mr. Macleod: None of the seats in this plan is labelled African or non-African in any way, and the heart of the matter, which is the national balance, I regard as being entirely in line with the principles behind the 1958 proposals.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is it not clear to the right hon. Gentleman from the question which he has just answered that his appeasement of his right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and his supporters has not succeeded, as appeasement never succeeds? Is it not tragic that the Colonial Secretary has retreated from his original intention of conceding the Africans a majority in the Legislative Council, as he has conceded such a majority in Nyasaland? Is he not taking the responsibility for undermining the moderate leadership of Mr. Kenneth Kaunda, and replacing him, perhaps. by much more extreme leaders?

Mr. Macleod: If the hon. Member will read the speech to which I have referred, he will see that from the beginning what I put before the conference was a scheme based on parity, or variations on the theme of parity. For myself, I am

neither surprised nor do I deny that there are many members of my party who are anxious about the pace of events in Africa. So am I—so we all ought to be. I happen to hold the view that we are going at the right pace in these circumstances. This plan was drawn up long before any of the events to which the hon. Member has referred.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: It is obvious that it would be extremely difficult to comment constructively on these proposals until we have had an opportunity to study the White Paper—and it would, indeed, be unfair to try to do so. Meanwhile, however, does my right hon. Friend agree that, in these communities where there is a large racial minority, a minimal degree of co-operation is essential if catastrophe is to be avoided? Does he consider that this requirement has been met in these proposals?

Mr. Macleod: I do not think that we can tell at this stage. Faced by two points of view which appeared, to our great regret, to be irreconcilable, the only thing that we could do was to put forward, honestly, our own point of view. I can assure the House that we have done that without regard to pressure from any quarter. I think that the reactions to the plan make that fairly plain. We believe that it is the right plan for Northern Rhodesia.
I believe that if people will accept the challenge of the plan—and the Liberal Party, under Sir John Moffat, which attended the Lancaster House Conference, has—as an appeal which cuts across the racial boundaries, we have the right answer.

Mr. Grimond: Is it not the fact that the Liberal Party in Northern Rhodesia accepted this plan on the understanding that it would guarantee a black African majority if the black Africans so desired? While we all share the right hon. Gentleman's desire for a non-racial approach, will he assure us that a nonracial approach does not mean that an absolute veto remains with a very small minority, and that ultimately the power of an elected majority must pass to black Africans, which they may use to elect black or white representatives? Will he assure us that in his view the plan means that that is where the majority power will ultimately lie?

Mr. Macleod: Nobody doubts that, ultimately, the majority power in Northern Rhodesia will be with the African people. That is accepted by the United Federal Party and all others. There can be no question about that and if the Leader of the Liberal Party will study the plan he will see that that is so. At this stage, I must say—because I do not know whether the representatives put up for the national seats will be Africans or Europeans—that I do not know who will win those seats. That is up to the people of the electorate of Northern Rhodesia, as it ought to be.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Apart from the Liberal Party, have all the leaders of the Northern Rhodesian parties had an opportunity to study the plan contained in the White Paper, and if so, to what extent do they regard it as a reasonable basis for further discussion?

Mr. Macleod: All the leaders of the parties who attended at Lancaster House have seen the plan. Of course, we have an obligation to consult and, naturally, Sir Roy Welensky has seen it, as have all the leaders in Northern Rhodesia. I want to answer that question perfectly clearly. I do not think that the plan ments what the African nationalist leaders would wish to see in the plan, and I think that some of the parties in Northern Rhodesia think that it goes too far, but, balancing those two risks as best we can, Her Majesty's Government believe that it is the right plan to put forward.

Mr. Dugdale: The right hon. Gentleman had a similar problem in Nyasaland. Why is it right that there should be an African majority in Nyasaland when it is wrong in Northern Rhodesia, where there is a similar situation and where there should be just that majority?

Mr. Macleod: Nobody who knows anything about Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia and the racial problems there can assume for a second that the two are on a par.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate the matter now without a Question before the House.

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. The House has not yet reflected on the

gravity of the situation resulting from the breakdown of this Conference. I therefore wish to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the serious situation arising from the breakdown of the Northern Rhodesia Constitutional Conference.
I do so for the following reasons. First, there is serious reason for believing that when some of the leaders return to Northern Rhodesia, they will be put in gaol, and if that is so, then the constitutional talks for which the Colonial Secretary hopes cannot take place out there. Secondly, many of us want to make an urgent appeal to him during a debate in which we can ask for his and the Government's views on recalling the Conference in London before the delegates disperse. That seems to us to be of the utmost significance so that they can all see the plans which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. Thirdly, we believe that tragedy will ensue if the delegates of this Conference disperse—although we hope and we ask all the parties, both European and African, that there shall be no violence despite the bitterness which exists out there. We therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give us an opportunity to debate this matter at seven o'clock tonight.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the serious situation arising from the breakdown of the Northern Rhodesia Constitutional Conference.
Hon Members will understand that I necessarily anticipated and contemplated this situation, but I cannot accede to the hon. Member's application.

Mrs. Castle: On a point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that, according to reports in responsible newspapers like the Guardian to-day, units of our strategic reserve are now being prepared for flight to Lusaka to help the Federal Government to deal with trouble arising from the imposition of a Constitution which the majority of the Northern Rhodesian people do not desire?
Is not this an urgent and definite aspect of the problem which brings the matter within the ruling of Standing Order No. 9? Will you, therefore, accept a Motion under that Standing Order in the following terms:
the alerting of certain units of Britain's strategic reserve for service in Northern Rhodesia to help impose a Constitution following a break-down of the constitutional talks?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady asks me to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, in this case on the basis of
the alerting of certain units of Britain's strategic reserve for service in Northern Rhodesia to help impose a Constitution following a break-down of the Constitutional talks.
I cannot accede to the application in that form.

Mr. Stonehouse: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? In view of the urgency of the position, how is it possible to obtain further information from the Colonial Secretary today about the steps which he now intends to take?

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that all this is a matter which the House will no doubt wish to discuss in its own due time. My difficulty is in seeking to apply the Standing Order in a way which would produce a result which I am asked to achieve.

Mr. Leather: Will you also take account, Mr. Speaker, that there has not yet been a chance for the House to register the fact that on this side there is overwhelming support for the Colonial Secretary for what he is trying to do?

Mr. Gordon Walker: On a point of order. May I seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to recall the Northern Rhodesia Constitutional Conference?
I put it in that form because it then becomes the direct responsibility of Her Majesty's Ministers.

Mr. Speaker: In this case the application is based on
the refusal of Her Majesty's Ministers to recall the Northern Rhodesia Constitutional Conference.
I do not think that that, either, is within the Standing Order.

Mr. Brockway: On a point of order. The whole House has a sense of the gravity of the situation in Northern Rhodesia and hon. Members on both sides will desire to have the earliest possible discussion. If, Mr. Speaker, you do not feel able to accept a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 now, does that mean that you would be ready to consider such a request tomorrow, or at a later date, or consider a request for a debate by the whole House?

Mr. Speaker: A request for a debate is not a matter for me, as the hon. Member knows, but what he has said will no doubt have been heard. I have to hear applications for an Adojurnment under Standing Order No. 9 and I will hear them and consider them whenever they are made to me.

Mr. Gaitskell: We all appreciate that you are bound by the rules of order about whether you can accept a Motion for the Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9, Mr. Speaker. But we are conscious of the gravity of the situation in Northern and in Southern Rhodesia, too. I believe that there is a general desire in the House to have a constructive and exploratory debate, in which Members on both sides will wish to give their view. Since you are apparently debarred by the rules of order from acceding to a request for an Adjournment of the House now, may I ask whether the Government will find time for a very early debate on this subject?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): We will consider the right hon. Gentleman's request. I can give no undertaking, for I have to consult my right hon. Friends, but perhaps conversations could proceed through the usual channels.

Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order. Since the Leader of the House has sought to answer a question of the Leader of the Opposition and has, therefore, accepted that he is answering questions at this stage, may I ask him whether he will make a statement tomorrow on the possibility of having a debate on this subject in the near future?

Mr. Butler: I accept the suggestion of having consultations. There is a great


deal of business ahead of us, but nobody under-estimates the importance of this subject. I must adhere to what I have said, namely, that we will have consultations about the matter.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

Mr. John Parker: In my speech on 15th February, introducing a Bill to prohibit a newspaper proprietor from controlling or investing in any television or broadcasting service, I stated, according to column 1410 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for that date, that many hon. Members had been asked to associate themselves with locally created radio companies, linked with local newspaper companies, to apply for local broadcasting rights if the law were changed. I went on to say that I had been asked to associate myself with the Dagenham Post, in my constituency, for this purpose.
I have since been informed that this approach to myself came from a company associated with another local newspaper. As the Dagenham Post has set up its own company for the same purpose, it has asked me to correct the mistake I made. I gladly do that and I hope that I have not harmed it in any way.

TICKET TOUTING

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the sale in public places by unauthorised persons of tickets for football matches and other sporting events at prices higher than the officially advertised price of the tickets, and for purposes connected therewith.
This proposed Bill has the support of hon, Members on both sides of the House and is intended to deal with a growing public nuisance affecting chiefly that large section of the community which is interested in watching football matches and certain other sporting events.
As hon. Members are aware, there is always a great demand for tickets at certain sporting events, particularly football games, not only cup-ties but also important League matches. Most football clubs endeavour to ensure that tickets for these matches are made available for their supporters and others on a basis of equality, so that every patron wishing to get one or two tickets to see a particular game has a fair and equal opportunity of doing so.
Experience during recent years has shown that an extensive racket has grown up whereby certain individuals, often referred to as ticket touts—and there is reason to believe that some of these are controlled by a central agency—manage to obtain by very dubious means a large number of tickets, sometimes as many as one hundred in the case of one individual, and then resell them at vastly inflated prices outside the ground or stadium where the match is to be played.
It is no uncommon thing for these ticket touts to charge £3 or £4 for an 8s. or 10s. ticket offered outside the ground before the game begins, and people who have no other means of entry —some of whom may have come from the provinces to London or vice versa to support their local team—have no option but either to pay the inflated prices demanded by a scarcity market or to go away disappointed.
This occurs to my knowledge regularly at Tottenham outside the Spurs ground, and at Highbury when the Arsenal are playing an important game, and I am told on reliable authority that a similar


nuisance occurs in Sheffield, Manchester and Birmingham as, for example, at Villa Park, on Saturday last. The House will appreciate that football supporters are naturally incensed and annoyed by this public display of profiteering, and this nuisance also creates a serious problem for the police.
As the law stands at present, the police are practically impotent. Very occasionally, the police can intervene on the ground that a ticket tout is causing obstruction, and, indeed, such a case occurred a few weeks ago, when a man called Charles James Spinks was charged with causing an obstruction outside the Spurs ground before a cup-tie. He was found with £299 in cash and 12 unsold tickets. As the only offence with which he could be charged was obstruction, he was fined 40s. Many a peaceful, cunning and well-mannered tout carries on this business and is not breaking the law if he sells his tickets, as many of them can, without in any way causing an obstruction.
The proposed Bill is supported by the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs, a body which consists of about 400 clubs and represents 750,000 supporters. My intention is that the scope of the Bill should be carefully limited to deal with the particular evil it is aimed at. I think it right that it should apply not merely to football matches, but to certain other sporting events where a similar nuisance occurs, notably boxing matches.
I propose that the Bill shall be confined to sporting events. It does not apply to entertainments and it will not in any way affect, for example, the reputable theatre agencies, which, quite properly, add a small booking fee for the sale of theatre tickets, and others.

Nor, of course, will it apply to the sale of tickets in private. It will be confined to sale in public because the evil it is aimed at is the practice which occurs outside the gates of a football ground or stadium. Obviously, it would be wrong for the Legislature to attempt to deal with the private sale of tickets. If a person has a ticket which he wants to sell privately at a profit, he is entitled to do so.
Nor would the Bill attempt to prevent the advertisements one sees regularly in The Times and other newspapers, offering tickets for Wimbledon and other sporting events at higher than the advertised prices. I propose that the Bill should be limited to sales in public. If the House gives me leave to introduce the Bill the question of penalties can be considered in Committee. At 'the moment, my inclination is to propose that the penalty should be merely 'sufficient as a deterrent. I suggest that £25 would be an appropriate maximum for a first offence, with a higher penalty for any subsequent offence.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Mellish, Mr. Skeffington. Mr. C. Osborne, Mr. Rees-Davies, Mr. Wade, Mr. G. Thomas, Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu, Mrs. Butler, Mr. A. Brown, and Mr. L. M. Lever.

TICKET TOUTING

Bill to prohibit the sale in public places by unauthorised persons of tickets for football matches and other sporting events at prices higher than the officially advertised price of the tickets, and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 3rd March, and to he printed.

Orders of the Day — LAND DRAINAGE BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the new Clause (Drainage rates—basis of assessment), the new Clause (Drainage rates—determination of relative poundage), the new Clause (Assessment of drainage charge on owners) and the Amendments to Schedule 1, page 31, lines 31 and 33, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Christopher Soames.—[Mr. Soames.]

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to move, to leave out "Committee of the whole House" and to insert "Standing Committee" instead thereof.
As far as my researches go, it seems to me that the step that I am now taking is without precedent. For that reason, it would be advisable if I gave you the special reasons which have led me to take this step, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Bill is based partly on the Heneage Committee's Report. That Report, which was a unanimous one, was agreed more than ten years ago. Since then, the Government have been considering the matter and have been meeting interested parties. Some time ago, having concluded their consultations with the various authorities, they published a White Paper. It is upon the Heneage Committee's Report and the White Paper that the present Bill is based.
The first remarkable thing about the Bill is its time of gestation. The Heneage Report was a unanimous one, but no action was taken on it for ten years. It is clear that there can be no question of urgency in this matter. Any time that might be lost by the reference back of the Bill to Standing Committee must be considered in the light of the fact that the Government have been considering the Bill and discussing it with the authorities for over ten years.
Secondly, the Bill was thoroughly discussed in Standing Committee, when the time devoted to it was fairly evenly shared between the two sides. When we began our proceedings there I made

it clear that there would be no party Whip on Members on my side of the Committee. The Government therefore had every opportunity to improve the Bill. The Committee stage lasted for ten sittings, but if the Government had so wished the Committee would have been willing to sit much longer.
In the Second Reading debate I called in aid the views of the North Hykeham Drainage Rate Protest Committee. I do so again today because I have received another communication from that body this morning, which says:
As officers of this committee we have watched with interest through HANSARD and the OFFICIAL REPORT the process of making laws in a democracy. We have been impressed by the thoroughness of the debates but dismayed and discouraged by the pitiful result.
That quotation admirably sums up the results of our endeavours in Standing Committee.
The Bill has taken ten years' consideration by a Government which have been indifferent to the flooding of the country; it has been thoroughly discussed in Committee, where the point was made repeatedly, on Clause after Clause, that it had nothing to do with flooding, and where repeated appeals have been made to the Government to do something about flooding. In spite of this, no action has been taken to deal with the emergency.
The Minister will concede that apart from one Clause those of my hon. Friends who wished to talk about flooding met great difficulties. In Committee. I was ruled out of order on every occasion upon which I attempted to raise the matter, except on Clause 31. Therefore, although we all recognise the existence of a grave emergency, no effort has been made by the Government to improve or alter the Bill in the light of that emergency. If any such action had been taken hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would have been willing to facilitate that action.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The hon. Member will realise that we are now dealing with the question of recommittal.

Mr. Willey: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am asking by way of Amendment for the Bill to be recommitted to a Standing Committee.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not the effect of the Amendment; the Amendment merely recommits the Clauses referred to in the Motion.

Mr. Willey: Then I must ask your advice about the possibility of moving a verbal Amendment, which, I understand, is the fashion now. I am in the difficulty in which the Leader of the House found himself earlier. That is why I thought it might be appropriate to move a verbal Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not sure what Amendment the hon. Member means to make. His Amendment at the moment is that the Bill be recommitted to a Standing Committee in respect of the Amendments on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Willey: The purpose of my Amendment is to leave out all the words after
that the Bill be recommitted to a".
I will confine myself to those parts of the Bill which are being recommitted. In doing so, I pray in aid the prospect which the House is facing.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must relate his remarks to the recommitted part of the Bill.

Mr. Willey: That is what I am endeavouring to do, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am trying to explain the position in which the House now finds itself. We have a Bill, a substantial part of which is to be discussed on recommittal. That means that it will be discussed in Committee, and that means a long discussion. But the House must also face the fact that when we have concluded our discussion we shall begin the Report stage. We cannot divorce recommittal and Report. I am concerned with the position in which the House finds itself upon the Bill leaving Standing Committee. Incidentally, 40 Government Amendments appear on recommittal, and I submit that the time has come for the House to safeguard its rights.
I am sick and tired of Ministers not being properly accountable to the House. We are getting far too much legislation being put forward by Ministers merely for the bureaucrats. Why should we give a Bill all this consideration and then find we need to improve the Bill in these minor ways merely because it has not been properly thought in the first instance?
Here was a Bill which was thought about for ten years and there was consultation and agreement with the parties. I do not want to elaborate this point, but in protesting against the recommittal we are protesting about this slipshod way of conducting legislation. The Minister is a politician. He knows the House and the Committee, and when the Government have spent ten years on the job he should come to the House with the Bill in a proper form.
What do we find when we look at the new Clauses? I do not wish to deal with the merits of the Clauses, because we will have an opportunity to do that either here or in the Standing Committee. The first two Clauses are incomprehensible. They are incomprehensible even to the parties with whom the Government negotiated. Clauses of this kind ought to be discussed at leisure in the Standing Committee. It is an abuse of the time of the House for the Minister to come and say. "Here for this purpose are three new Clauses which we did not bother to introduce in the Standing Committee. We will rush them through the House".
But it is worse than that. I explained that the Bill depended on an agreement. These new Clauses have not been the subject of agreement with the parties concerned. Time and again, during our discussions in the Standing Committee the right hon. Gentleman appealed to us and said, "Well, however valid the point you make may be, the Government feel themselves bound by an agreement". Now, on recommittal, the Minister has brought forward three new Clauses which are, first, quite incomprehensible, and, secondly, are outside the consultations and agreements. This is a breach of faith by the Government. These matters ought to have been further discussed with the parties to the White Paper. It is a breach of that agreement if, instead of discussing these new matters in the Standing Committee they are introduced at this stage of the Bill.
The principle ought to be accepted and established that no new matters ought to be introduced at this stage of a Bill. You have said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you do not wish me to transgress by referring to the Report stage, but we have here a new Clause affecting the liberty of the subject. There was no mention of that on Second Reading, or in the Standing


Committee. However, I will not pursue that, but will return to this Clause.
I have already complained about Ministers coming to the House and being the mouthpieces of the bureaucracy. In this case, I honestly believe that the Minister had not the slightest idea of what was happening in his Department. It might be asked what evidence there is to support that. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) will remember that time and again we discussed the difficulties of an assessment based on Schedule A. Time and again the Government defended the attitude they had adopted.
Here, the Government are proposing, in the first two Clauses, a measure which is apparently presented as a solution. Not a word of this was mentioned on Second Reading, or in the Standing Committee. The Government did not even say that they were considering a solution. I am convinced that while we were discussing the Bill in the Standing Committee the bureaucrats in the Department and the Treasury were busily putting their heads together discussing this matter.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government would do everything they could to try to find ways of evening out anomalies. I think that all hon. Members of the Standing Committee will remember that. I cannot understand why he should accuse the Government of not wishing to co-operate with the Standing Committee.

Mr. Willey: I am touched by the loyalty of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but that was not the case that I was making. I will put my case in a form acceptable to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
I said that in Standing Committee we repeatedly discussed what could be done about the anomalies arising under Schedule A, and, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman rightly points out, the Government said that they would do anything they could to deal with this. What I am objecting to is that they did not suggest that they had some idea of what they could do.
Here we have embodied in the new Clauses an idea for dealing with the

situation, but if the right hon. Gentleman had any such idea in his head when we were discussing this in Committee upstairs he should have explained it then to get the reactions of the Committee, otherwise it is a waste of time being in the Standing Committee. If the Minister had said in Committee upstairs, "I have a novel idea for dealing with this", it could have been discussed, and the parties affected could have been consulted about this novel idea.
The third new Clause appears, on the face of it, to be a concession to landlords. I object to this being squeezed in on recommittal.
Those are matters which ought to be discussed, but I do not wish to traverse this matter at any length. I want to re-establish clearly the points upon which I rest my case. This is a step which has apparently not been taken before. I urge that the exceptional circumstances of this case are that here is a Bill which is unrelated to any emergency but which was considered and discussed by the Government for over ten years. There is no excuse for bringing forward at this late stage new, novel, and revolutionary concepts which were not mentioned on Second Reading, were not mentioned in the Standing Committee, and which have not been discussed with the authorities. We find here new ideas about rating assessments which are contrary to the principle of rating and valuation under the present Government. As I say, I cannot help but suspect that this kind of thing happens because a Minister is not in proper control of his Department. and that some bright backroom boys were thinking about this while we were slogging away in the Standing Committee. That is my first broad point in favour of the Amendment.
The second point is that we, as Members of this House, should safeguard the use and time of this House. We are pressed for time throughout the year. The most valuable time is the time of the House, not that of people who sit behind the Minister advising him. It is in this House that time is valuable. On a Bill which was largely noncontroversial and largely technical we cannot allow the Government to come forward with pages and pages of Amendments and new Clauses which it will be necessary to have explained by the Law


Officers. The Minister's action shows a complete disregard for the parties who were apparently brought together for the purpose of getting agreement on the White Paper.
I hope that the Government, not disregarding their present difficulties, will see that the course that I am suggesting is the right and proper one and that it would be far better to adopt my suggestion. Those of us who were on the Standing Committee would not begrudge the time necessary to discuss the Bill if it were sent back to the Standing Committee.

If that were done, it would have this advantage. It will give those of us who will serve on the Committee an opportunity to discuss these new matters thoroughly with the parties affected. Only this morning I received a communication from the National Farmers' Union and from the Country Landowners' Association. I have not had time to consult them. I also want time to consult the drainage authorities. The Minister can contradict me if it be not so, but as far as I know they have not been consulted about this.
Further, the local authorities will feel that if the new principle of assessment is introduced it might be employed in regard to local authorities. As far as I know, there has been no consultation with them. The only argument against accepting my Amendment would be perverseness on behalf of the Government, similar to the perverseness they displayed on the Post Office Bill upstairs. The Government will probably say, "Because we tabled all these Amendments we intend to stick our toes in. We shall keep hon. Members here in Committee and on Report discussing pages and pages of new Clauses and Amendments."
Alternatively, the Government can say, accepting all that has been said in favour of the Amendment, "We feel ourselves burdened by emergency. We need the legislation immediately". That is one argument the Government cannot advance, because the legislation has taken ten years to reach this stage.
I hope that the Government will look at the Amendment sympathetically and agree that the only way to have proper discussion of these new matters is to recommit the Bill to Standing Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman is willing,

I am prepared that the whole Bill should be recommitted to Standing Committee. I should much prefer that, but if we are to compromise we should recommit in respect of the three new Clauses and the two Amendments which the Government have specified in their Motion.
For these reasons, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say that he agrees with my proposal and thus lighten the labour of the House.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I support the Amendment, and I do so for a number of rather different reasons from those advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). I do not for a moment dispute the reasons he advanced, but we have to examine this problem—first, the Motion of the Minister that in respect of these matters the Bill should be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House and, secondly, the Amendment of my hon. Friend that it should he recommitted to Standing Committee—from three different points of view.
First, we must consider what is the most efficient way of dealing with the Bill. Secondly, we must consider what is the most convenient way of dealing with the matter from the point of view of the time of the House as a whole. Thirdly, what is the most convenient method from the point of view of hon. Members? Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North, who had the advantage of sitting through the Committee stage, I am a newcomer. I was not on the Standing Committee. I am in the same position as the majority of hon. Members. After a detailed, complicated and technical Bill has been fully considered in Committee, I, like all hon. Members, am quite prepared to spend a certain amount of time on Report dealing with the matters left over by the Committee for Report.
I object to having to deal in Committee of the whole House with matters of detail which ought properly to be dealt with in Committee. I do not feel that that is fair to myself or to the House as a whole. Four or five Standing Committees are sitting at present. Some are likely to sit for several weeks. I am on the Standing Committee that is considering the Licensing Bill. Hon. Members cannot attend in detail to more than one


Committee at a time. Therefore, when a Bill comes to the House for consideration on Report I submit that hon. Members are entitled to find that it has been fully considered in Committee. They ought not to have to devote their time to dealing with purely Committee points. That is why it is so essential on principle that the Bill be recommitted to Standing Committee.
My hon. Friend said that he could not find any precedent for such an Amendment. I am not sure if he is right on that. To be suite honest, I have not searched Erskine May or the precedents, hut, speaking from recollection, I believe that there has been a case when a Bill has been recommitted to Standing Committee. Therefore, I do not think that the House would be taking an unprecedented step if it adopted my hon. Friend's suggestion. Whether or not there be a precedent, we are perfectly entitled to look at the matter de novo, because this affects very materially the whole procedure of the House of Commons.
We are being asked to re-commit to a Committee of the whole House three new Clauses and two Amendments. A number of Amendments have been tabled to each of the three new Clauses. My hon. Friend says that the new Clauses are incomprehensible. I will be quite honest with the House, I cannot confirm that, because I have not read them, but I am prepared to believe that they are incomprehensible if my hon. Friend says that they are, because he is the expert on this subject. He was on the Standing Committee. If the three new Clauses are incomprehensible to those who sat through the Committee stage, they will be far more incomprehensible to the hundreds of hon. Members who are now asked to consider the matter on Report. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I am giving very good reasons why I think some of them would be wasting their time if they were here, because the whole burden of my argument is that hon. Members ought not to be asked to deal in Committee of the whole House with these new Clauses, which my hon. Friend says are incomprehensible and should go back to Standing Committee.
Whether or not they are incomprehensible, no one can deny that they are

highly complicated, highly technical and highly controversial. Some of them seem to introduce entirely novel principles into our law. The rubric to the first new Clause is:
Drainage rates—basis of assessment.
The new Clause consists of about fifty lines, and there are three Amendments to it. The rubric to the second new Clause is:
Drainage rates—determination of relative poundage.
Do hon. Gentlemen who were not on the Standing Committee know what "relative poundage" is? This is also a very long Clause, and there are four Amendments to it. The rubric to the third new Clause is:
Assessment of drainage charge on owners 
Amendments to this new Clause have been tabled from both sides of the
been tabled House.
There is very ancient authority on the subject of incomprehensibility, with which I will not trouble the House at present, but whether or not any of this is comprehensible and whether we deal with the matter in Standing Committee or in Committee of the whole House, the presence of one of the Law Officers is essential. I observe that no Law Officer is in attendance. If the matter is dealt with in Standing Committee, a Law Officer can attend, whether he is a member of the Committee or not. He can attend as a matter of convenience to give the Committee the guidance which it is entitled to have in such matters.
My first point is that, in the interests of efficiency, doing our duty as a Legislature, and ensuring that the Bill when it is passed into law will be as perfect in form, as sensible and as intelligible as it should be, it is obviously desirable that the three proposed new Clauses—cumbersome, complicated and controyersial—should be carefully and leisurely considered in the quiet surroundings of a Committee room upstairs.
My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, has pointed out that there will be points involved about which the body of the interested organisations will have something to say. None of us—not even those who served an the Committee—has yet had the


advantage of hearing their observations. How on earth can we hon. Members who have come, if I may say so, with virgin minds to this complicated problem of land drainage, be expected to comment intelligently and discuss three long, tedious new proposals which are being offered to us by the Government?
My hon. Friend has pointed out that there is no urgency about this legislation. The period of gestation has been about ten years and surely a little further delay will not matter. Since I became a Member of the House my concern has always been to regard one of our principle objects as legislators to be to see that legislation passed through the House is carefully considered, measured, analysed, and vetted. We try to perform our legislative tasks and duties to the best of our ability, and I do not think that the public can possibly expect us to do that in this kind of situation. This is not merely a matter which affects a small class of the community; it affects the whole of the agricultural community and, in fact, all who are interested in the whole subject of land drainage. I think that goes for the whole community.
I now turn to what is equally a feature of this valuable debate and one which involves consideration of the whole of the arrangements for dealing with the business of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), who takes a great interest in these matters, in view of the discussions that have taken place in the House both at Question Time this afternoon and at the early hours of the morning, no doubt will have something to say on this subject before we part with this Amendment. Surely we must try to reach some sensible arrangement as to how the time of the House should be spent. This afternoon, when the momentous events which are taking place, or which may take place, in Africa are uppermost in the minds of all hon. Members, as was indicated in the discussion across the Floor—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am afraid that this is getting very far from the Amendment.

Mr. Fletcher: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I explain why it is in order? I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale is following

this. The issue on this Amendment is whether or not three highly complicated and controversial new Clauses of the Land Drainage Bill should be discussed in the whole House or whether they should be recommitted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North and I think, to a Standing Committee. The issue is, therefore, whether the time of the House today will be usefully spent in what is sure to be a long and intricate argument as to whether or not the new Clauses of the Land Drainage Bill should be discussed in the whole House or sent back to a Standing Committee.
The Government are saying that they are entirely responsible for arranging the business of the House. My complaint, and one of the reasons why I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North—I hope without undue vehemence —is that it is an intolerable abuse on the part of the Minister, presumably with the knowledge and approval of the Leader of the House, to suggest that we should spend several hours this afternoon on this purely technical matter of whether these new Clauses should be considered by a Committee of the whole House or whether, bearing in mind the important matters the House has to discuss, they should go to a Standing Committee.
In that I am not merely thinking of the Opposition. We have indicated quite clearly the matters that we think should be discussed in the House. The Government equally want to discuss the Consolidated Fund Bill because they are in frightful trouble with it. They could not get it through this morning and they have had to rearrange the whole of tomorrow's business because of that.
What an intolerable muddle the Leader of the House is getting us all into by his comic, short-sighted, inefficient way of handling business. He has condemned hon. Members, in the priceless hours of this Tuesday afternoon, to spend their time trying to persuade the Government to do the sensible thing and send the Land Drainage Bill back upstairs so that the new Clauses can be considered in Standing Committee.
The Government are suggesting that, instead of discussing either the things we want to discuss, or the things they


say they want to discuss, about the Consolidated Fund Bill and decimal coinage and matters like that, we should spend our time fruitlessly and inefficiently considering three new Clauses to the Land Drainage Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North says are incomprehensible. I have deliberately refrained from reading the Clauses, because I object to having to discuss them in Committee of the whole House, but if my hon. Friend says that they are incomprehensible I accept it. If they are incomprehensible to him I am quite sure that I should have to spend a great deal of time, and give a great deal of thought, to trying to understand what the new Clauses mean, before I could usefully pass any opinion on them.
If these matters are seriously to be considered in Committee of the whole House then it will be the duty of every Member to apply his mind to the question of drainage rates, the basis of assessment and the determination of relative poundage. I ask hon. Members who were not members of the Committee on the Bill if they know what is meant by "relative poundage". Has my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale any idea what is meant by the determination of relative poundage? I am sure that he would not cast a vote lightly on a matter of this kind without having given it careful thought.
My hon. Friend has other things to do and other Bills to consider in Standing Committee, as have a great many of us. It seems to me intolerable, therefore, that we should have to divert our attention from all the questions that occupy us, and that in Committee of the whole House the 640 Members should be trying to solve for the Government problems which they have been too lazy even to bring before the House until this late stage of the Bill and having to deal with them without the benefit of hearing what the Standing Committee has to say about it.
I feel that this is a most unfortunate proposal which the Minister has made. Whether or not there are precedents for my hon. Friend's Amendment, I do not care. I ask the House, in its wisdom and sanity, to say that it would be unreasonable, inefficient and an abuse of the time of the whole House to commit this

Bill to a committee of the whole House. The right course for the Government to adopt, in their own interests as well as in the interests of their supporters and the Opposition, is to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment and send these three Clauses back to Standing Committee. Then, when the Standing Committee has finished with them, they will have done a good job.
The Committee on this Bill had ten sittings, but I am a member of a Committee on a Bill which is likely to have sixty sittings. After the Committee on the Land Drainage Bill has had the Bill recommitted to it and done a good job on it it should come back to the House for Report. Then we could fulfil the task which the Committee could not do on its own. I hope that my hon. Friends will strongly support the Amendment.

5.10 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): In view of the speech which has just been made by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), which showed a certain lack of understanding of the situation, perhaps it might be helpful to the House if I say something on how this by no means unusual situation comes about. He said that he had not read the new Clauses and did not know what they were about, because he wanted the Bill to be recommitted to the Standing Committee. He was taking a new-found interest in this matter.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), when he moved the Amendment, talked as he has done before—and we are aware of it—about the time that has been taken between the date when the Heneage Committee reported and the bringing of this Bill before the House. As he knows, during that period a large number of organisations and associations were deeply interested in the matter and many of their interests pulled in different directions. The Government were anxious to get as broad a degree of agreement as could be obtained on a Measure of this kind, which, as the hon. Member said, is largely technical. Naturally, if we could do it by agreement it was so much the better. Much time has been spent on that. I do not want to go over that again, for it was spoken of on Second Reading and in Committee.
I, so to speak, inherited this Bill and I realised when I first read it that it suffered from both the advantages and disadvantages of having had so much work done on it in the past in order to try to get agreement. The advantages speak for themselves. The disadvantages, which were echoed by a number of hon. Members on Second Reading, include the fact that, when we have a Bill which is too much the result of agreement between different associations, it is difficult to amend it and for Parliament to do the work which it feels it likes to do on a Bill of this character. I was determined to do all I could to ensure that when suggestions were made or Amendments were moved which perhaps we could not accept in Committee, we should do our very best to incorporate them in the Bill if we thought it would thus be improved, and that is what we have done.
As the hon. Member said, there are some forty Amendments and some new Clauses. While I could not say that this is true of every one of them, certainly the vast majority have been put down to meet points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House on Second Reading and in Committee. Time and again my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and myself said that for one reason or another we could not accept an Amendment as it stood, but that we would consider putting forward an Amendment on Report. That, of course, was readily accepted by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North.

Mr. Willey: I at once pay tribute to the Government. On some matters they accepted the spirit of Amendments in Committee, but many other matters appear on the Notice Paper today. I refer, for instance, to power of entry—that is, power of entry under the Act of 1930. It is thirty years since that Act was passed but nothing has been done about it in relation to this Bill and it was not mentioned either on Second Reading or in Committee.

Mr. Soames: The question of power of entry is not dealt with in the new Clauses or Amendments mentioned in the recommittal Motion and, therefore, is not under discussion at present. What is being discussed is recommittal of the Bill for certain Clauses and

Amendments. Some of them have been put on the Notice Paper for reasons which are well known to hon. Members. If they touch on financial matters they have to be recommitted. There are about three new Clauses and half a dozen Amendments which have to be dealt with on recommittal because they touch on financial matters.
The two main Clauses to which the hon. Member referred and which form the bulk of the recommittal motion raise points which were discussed by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House on Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said on Second Reading:
Broadly, that basis reflects land values. There are, of course, considerable anomalies in certain circumstances, and both my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) mentioned that. In particular, we know that these anomalies are found in reference to the existing assessments of drainage areas, but I hope that I can help by saying that we are now looking into this to see whether it is possible to find any way of ameliorating …
Perhaps I should change the word to "improving"—
the position."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1960; Vol. 630, c. 153–4.]
In Committee, my right hon. Friend said on this point, in answer to an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke):
I hope, however, that I have shown that we appreciate that there are certain anomalies which we intend to examine, though I would not like the Committee to think that we are on the way to dealing with them all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 20th December, 1960, c. 315.]
What we have done is to give our minds to this problem and, on a number of points which have been raised, we have done our best to meet hon. Members. There are a number of Amendments on the Notice Paper, but this is a long Bill and there is nothing unusual at all in what we are putting to the House. There are certain Clauses which by custom we all understand have to be recommitted because they touch financial aspects.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North said that this was a precedent and the hon. Member for Islington, East said that he did not know whether it was a precedent because he had not looked it up. I have looked it up and I have not


found any precedent for recommitting a Bill to a Standing Committee. There is nothing unusual in what we are proposing. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North said that these new Clauses are incomprehensible, but I do not think that is so. I am not trying to over-rate my own intellectual abilities, but I hope that I shall be able to explain them in a not too difficult fashion to the hon. Member. If I can understand them, I am sure that he can. I suggest that we get on with these Clauses and discuss them. I therefore hope that the House will accept the Motion and will not accept the Amendment, which could do nothing but to hold up further a Bill which I think the country at large realises will be of benefit to it.

Mr. Willey: The right hon. Gentleman referred to what was said by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, but the only discussion we had on this matter was on Clause 31, which later the right hon. Gentleman will seek to remove. In the speech to which the Minister referred the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said:
I should not like to know what part of his future he is able to foresee, but I do not think that a change is likely in the immediate future.
This was in the discussion on Schedule A, and apparently the Department knew that a change was likely to be made.

Mr. Soames: What my hon. Friend was referring to was Schedule A valuation and there has not been a new Schedule A valuation. If we get on to discussing the Clauses, I shall be able to inform the hon. Member of very considerable improvements that we have been able to make in wiping out anomalies and achieving a greater degree of equity and fairness in the raising of rates.

Mr. Willey: I do not want to pursue the matter further, but I want to make it right for the record. This statement was prefaced by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary saying:
The question of if and when Schedule A assessments may be revised and brought up to date is beyond discussion on this Clause."—['OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 20th December, 1960; c. 315
That is the very matter we shall be discussing on one of the new Clauses.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. George Jeger: In his reply the Minister very rightly played upon the fact that he had been trying to get agreement between all the interested parties on matters arising out of the Heneage Report. It is perfectly true that that was the answer which Ministers have given to us on a number of occasions during the past ten years when we have asked time after time for the implementation of that Report and for something to be done in connection with land drainage. But in bringing forward these new Clauses to the whole House in this manner, the right hon. Gentleman seems to have departed somewhat from the practice of trying to get agreement between the interested parties.
In the Second Reading debate on 14th November last—I will give only a short quotation—the right hon. Gentleman said:
The first point to be resolved before we could legislate was what was an equitable basis for a charge on agricultural land. Negotiations were entered into with the leaders of interested parties—The River Boards' Association, the N.F.U. the Country Landowners' Association and the Association of Drainage Authorities.
Then comes the important item:
The parts of the Bill which deal with the financial contribution to be made by occupiers of agricultural land outside internal drainage districts represent the agreement reached between all these bodies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1960; Vol. 630, c. 35–6.]
We are perfectly willing that agreement should be reached between 'those bodies. In fact, the Minister and his many predecessors have, over and over again, paid tribute to the various hon. Members on both sides of the House who are clamouring for action with regard to flood prevention and land drainage because, they said, that they were anxious to obtain agreement.
On the first new Clause which the Minister is anxious to put before us today we have this morning received communications from the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association, two of the four parties to the general agreement reached. which do not seem to fit in with the general scheme and pattern of getting agreement between all the parties concerned. I will quote from the circular from the National Farmers' Union which,


as I say, arrived only this morning. It says:
The National Farmers' Union welcomes the tabling of this new Clause by the Minister.
So the right hon. Gentleman has the N.F.U. on his side. The communication from the Country Landowners' Association, on the other hand, starts by saying:
The meaning of this new Clause is far from clear
If the Country Landowners' Association, which has a time-honoured association with this kind of subject, finds the Clause far from clear, what does the Minister expect that we, who are more or less laymen and are meeting the Clause for the first time, shall deduce from its wording?
We are accustomed to having items discussed in Committee and to having Bills referred to a Standing Committee for two reasons. The first is that we should save the time of the House which should be used for other purposes. That matter has been dealt with by one of my hon. Friends and I do not propose to repeat what has been said. The second purpose. and one which I think is the main purpose for which the Standing Committee exists, is that Bills should be discussed in detail, not day by day and hour by hour but at intervals.
As we know, Standing Committee A which considered this Bill—I was a member of it—met twice a week in the mornings. That gave us time to digest the proceedings, to consider the Amendments put down on the Notice Paper and to take counsel from those interested organisations of a national character with which we were connected and also to consult the interested people in our constituencies, some of whom are direct sufferers from the lack of adequate drainage and the floods which have occurred so repeatedly during the past few years.
To consider these Clauses now without the benefit of such consultation and advice places upon us a rather invidious duty. I am the first to say that we cannot do the Clauses justice by considering them here and now without the opportunity of consultation with those expert bodies upon whom we rely to give us advice in these matters.
In my opinion, the Minister is doing both the Bill and the House a disservice

by pushing the matter forward in this way. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) referred to the Bill as "slipshod" legislation. That is a word which I myself jotted down, and my hon. Friend took the word from my notes. But it is also casual legislation, and if we have to offer any excuse for the Minister, for whom we have a high personal regard, it is that he is new to the office. Unfortunately, most of the Ministers of Agriculture whom we have had under the Tory Administration have come to us quite new and left while still new. It may be, perhaps, that the right hon. Gentleman feels that his position is temporary, insecure, and that he is bolstered up by a Parliamentary Secretary who is also new —though also an estimable gentleman—and that, possibly, he is not going to he in that office very long.
There they are, the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary. perhaps taking a casual and slipshod attitude towards legislation connected with agriculture as a whole. I hope that. for the sake of their own reputations, they will accept the Amendment moved and supported by several of my hon. Friends, and that they will realise that the best way in which these matters can be considered in detail with the agreement of the interested professional bodies which really have studied these matters very carefully—far more carefully than has the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend—is that we should consider them at our leisure with the benefit of expert advice. Then the legislation for which we have waited for over ten years will be effective and will be fruitful to the agricultural community generally and to our flooded land which is so sadly in need of effective and efficient drainage.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I must confess that when I listened to the Minister's speech I thought that he had a very strong case. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) appealed to me on a number of occasions to support the view which he was presenting to the Committee, but I am not yet convinced by the case which he has put forward. I will certainly listen very carefully to everything which is said from this side of the House. But a more convincing argument will have to be produced has has yet been produced to get


me into the Division Lobby tonight. I say that quite frankly at the start. I say it particularly because I was surprised when I saw this Amendment on the Notice Paper. I was surprised on general grounds because on general grounds, if possible, all Bills should be taken on the Floor of the House. That used to be the practice. The Committee system was developed much later when it was discovered that the business of the House was becoming so difficult to get through that the House established the Committee system.
Theoretically, it is advantageous that all Bills should be considered on the Floor of the House, and the more Bills that can be so considered the better. Therefore, as I say, I was surprised when I saw that my hon. Friends were urging that instead of taking the Bill on the Floor of the House it should be sent to a Standing Committee. That being so. I started favourable to the view which the Minister has presented. Moreover. if we have to have Bills going through the House it is better to have good Bills than bad Bills. On the whole, I prefer the Bills introduced by the right hon. Gentleman to those introduced by many of his colleagues. I prefer the Bills of the right hon. Gentleman to the Bills of the Minister of Health. I would rather see his Bills going through the House than those of the Minister of Health. Therefore, I do not want to suggest, particularly in a Measure of this kind, that there is any fundamental reason of principle why it should not be taken on the Floor of the House, and as extensively as everyone wants.
The Minister, as far as Ministers go, is about the best of the bunch. They say that the choice is small in rotten apples, but the right hon. Gentleman is about the best of them. He is prepared to come to the House at whatever time of day, he shows good temper at night, he comes with an excellent temper, a buoyant manner and legitimate modesty, and I think that we should give him every assistance we can. Therefore, I am very eager to support the Minister in this respect.
I should have to hear much more convincing arguments from my hon. Friend than those which have been advanced to show why we should not support what the Minister is saying. I

would go so far as to say that in his speech in support of his Amendment—with the exception of one or two matters to which I will refer later—he put his case as strongly as he could. I would not attempt to improve on his language, much less ameliorate it. If there are any defects in the Bill, that was clearly explained by the right hon. Gentleman who said that he had inherited this Bill; that it is not the kind of Bill be would have liked. If that is not the case, I cannot understand why he should have insisted so strongly that he inherited the Bill, and therefore changes have to be made in it. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was casting a reflection on his predecessor which is something I should not wish to dispute—

Mr. Soames: Let me get this absolutely right. That was not my point at all. I think that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the point I was trying to make. I said that when I first read the Bill-4 was not the Minister at the time when it was drafted—I realised that it was inevitable, as a result of the many negotiations which had taken place, that it should have both advantages and disadvantages. When it became my task to bring the Measure before the House, I was determined to ensure that during its progress through its Parliamentary stages it should be possible for hon. Members to make normal improvements to it.

Mr. Foot: I do not think that I have misrepresented the Minister in any way. I said I thought that the Minister had hinted that there were some disadvantages in his having inherited the Bill. He now tells us there was some advantages and some disadvantages. I was only giving the disadvantages. There may be advantages, but the Minister has not explained very clearly what they are. Indeed, what he has just said suggests that when he first saw the Bill he could not understand it any better than most other people. But now he is fully equipped to carry the Measure through the House.
If the right hon. Gentleman admits how difficult it is. he has conceded one point to my hon. Friends, although I am not yet convinced by the case they have advanced. The Minister admits that it is an extremely complicated Bill, with forty Amendments and the new Clauses. It has been said by some hon. Members that parts of the Bill are incomprehensible.


The Minister rebutted this argument powerfully and skilfully. He said that if he could understand it everybody ought to be able to understand it, and that is a very fair point.
But how long has the Minister been in his office? How many months is it since he became Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food? It is quite a long time. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is capable of piloting the Bill through the House now, but he cannot expect everybody to pick up in a few minutes what has taken him several months to comprehend. So, when he comes to the question of comprehensibility, there may be a case if not for sending this Measure to a Standing Committee—I do not like that procedure at all—at any rate for giving the House a longer time to consider it.
There have been suggestions that negotiations have been going on for a long time and that land values are going up all the time. They are going up so fast that indeed they will alter all the figures in a Bill of this kind as discussion upon it progresses. Therefore, it may be that the quicker we get the Bill on the Statute Book the better it will be for the nation. I do not stress that point too strongly because, although I am not convinced by the arguments of my hon. Friends, I do not want, as it were, to present an argument to the Government.
If we are to have the proposition that a Measure should not be taken on the Floor of the House or that there should be pressure for removing some Measures from being discussed in this Chamber, the arguments must be stronger than those which have already been voiced. Anyone speaking from the Opposition Front Bench and arguing such a case, if he wants to win my sympathy—they do not always wish to do that—should, at any rate, start his speech by laying down the principle that it is desirable that as many Measures as possible should be taken on the Floor of the House as opposed to being discussed in a Standing Committee.
That certainly applies to Measures which are favoured by hon. Members on this side of the House. I do not see why we should not assist Measures like this, which we wish to assist, by discussion in this Chamber; particularly when there are a number of other Measures awaiting

discussion which we dislike and which we do not want discussed either on the Floor of the House or in Standing Committee. I shall wait to see whether my hon. Friends really have a strong case, but, so far, my sympathies are with the Minister.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: I congratulate the Minister on securing the sympathy of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot).

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): I hope that we shall retain it.

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend has asked what is our position. Do we believe that the Bill should be discussed on the Floor of the House or in a Standing Committee? I say that a Bill should go through all its stages and that at every stage there should be adequate opportunity for discussion. There are Bills which, in certain circumstances, should be discussed in a Standing Committee. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale would not argue that no Bill should be sent to a Standing Committee. If he is so arguing, he is arguing against the whole procedure of Standing Committees, and I should like to know whether that is his view

Mr. M. Foot: In most cases—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That is going beyond the bounds of the Amendment.

Mr. Peart: I was replying in respect of a principle of debate concerned with the procedure indicated in our Amendment which seeks to recommit parts of the Bill to a Standing Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale dealt with this matter and was allowed to continue. I was making a debating point. I should have thought it far better to debate these matters rather than discuss them personally.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale has said that if I do not make clear the position of speakers from the Opposition Front Bench he will have sympathy with the Government and that if we press our Amendment he will vote with the Government. That would be a terrible crisis for the Government.

Mr. M. Foot: It might be a crisis for me, too. My hon. Friend must accept the principle that if we send Bills to a Standing Committee—which is unavoidable if we are to cope with the business of the House—we are infringing to some degree some of the rights of other hon. Members who are not members of the Committee and there are some Standing Committees which have been formed in which I have not absolute confidence. I should prefer that all Measures go through the Committee stage on the Floor of the House. I know that that is not possible, and that exceptions have to be made, but I hope that my hon. Friend will put a good case for making it the exception, rather than a general rule, that Bills should be discussed by Standing Committees.

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept either the logic or the principle of my hon. Friend. I think it right that a Bill of this nature should be discussed by a Standing Committee because important technical matters are involved which could be discussed at greater length and in greater detail—

Mr. Fletcher: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the real answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) is that unless this complicated matter is first discussed in a Standing Committee we cannot have a full and adequate discussion on the Floor of the House? One reason why this Amendment has been moved is that, if it is analysed in Committee, we can discuss it at length. If we accept the Government's proposal we are not equipped to have a full-scale debate on the matter.

Mr. Peart: I thank the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) for supporting my point of view that the purpose of a Standing Committee was to sift the details, to examine the evidence and establish the principles, but in no way to prevent a Report stage, so that hon. Members may argue the details of the Bill or, indeed, the Amendments or the principles. There must at all times be adequate discussion.

Mr. Cyril Bence: My hon. Friend has suggested that when Bills are sent to Standing Committees they put experts on the Standing Committees.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. This is going beyond the Amendment.

Mr. Bence: But the point has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), and has been replied to, about this Bill being sent to a Standing Committee, and my hon. Friend, in supporting that proposition, said that the Bill would get full examination in Standing Committee because the Members being appointed to that Committee will give it a full examination. I was suggesting that very often on the Scottish Standing Committee, hon. Members from English constituencies are thrown in just to make weight.

Mr. Peart: I cannot speak of the Scottish Grand Committee. When we are arguing about experts, I think of Veblen, who said that experts sometimes have a trained incapacity to think.
I believe that on matters affecting agricultural Bills, as in the case of this Bill, it is desirable that in the Committee there should be hon. Members who have had experience of land drainage, either as Members of river boards, as one hon. Member is, Members who have particular constituency interests, like the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), and, indeed, other hon. Members on my own side of the House who represent the views of the municipal corporations and others who represent rural areas. I am merely arguing that it is right and proper that we should have a Bill of this kind examined by a Standing Committee.

Mr. R. T. Paget: It seems to me that the great difficulty here is this. I have tried to read this Clause and I find it totally incomprehensible. If we had had this in the Bill originally, we should have had an Explanatory Memorandum, which would have given some idea of what it means. As it is, the only way in which we can get some explanation of what it is about is for it to be discussed in Committee, and until it has been discussed in Committee and we have had the explanation, we cannot understand the Clause or consider the explanation. That is why, in these circumstances, with no Explanatory Memorandum, a Report stage here seems to me to be so important, and a Report


stage after a sufficient interval for us to be able to consider the explanation, and indeed to get the views of farmers. rivers boards and others.

Mr. Peart: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) reinforces my argument, and I am glad of his support. He has argued, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) was arguing, that many of these new Clauses which we are to discuss are incomprehensible. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale took up the Minister's point of view, and the Minister said that he now understood it very clearly and thought that my hon. Friend should.
I must say that if any hon. Member here in the House, apart from the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, can honestly say that he really does understand the Government's first new Clause, which deals with drainage rates and the basis of assessment, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale says he understands it. and if he also understands the second Clause about drainage rates and the determination of the relative poundage, and the other Clause which deals with the assessment of the drainage charge on owners, I would say that, because of the language, I am certain that they do not understand it.
Very often there is a legal interpretation, and that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East asked that we should have the advice of one of the Law Officers of the Crown, and which we shall ask for when we come to it.

Mr. M. Foot: That will not help.

Mr. Peart: I know that it will not help. Indeed, on previous occasions, the Attorney-General has been asked for his advice in a Standing Committee, and his advice has been refuted by the legal advisers in the Ministry, and we have had complications. While I admit that the advice of the Attorney-General may not help, perhaps that of the Solicitor-General will. Certainly, we shall ask for his advice when we come to this Clause.
All I am saying now is that these Clauses are difficult to understand, if not incomprehensible. There should have been more consultation and more discussion. That was the point of view argued with great force by my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger), who

gave an example of a case in which there is now a dispute between the various parties concerned in this Bill.
I would remind hon. Members, to pick up a point mentioned by the Minister, that the Bill we are discussing is the result of long negotiations. I believe, also, that we have the Bill now because of delay, because the Government have been afraid to make up their minds and have used delaying action, which I argued strongly on Second Reading. They have failed to do something for land drainage and to act according to their own policies put forward at election times.
In their "charters" they said that they would do something about land drainage, but it has taken ten years before they start to implement even part of the Heneage Committee's Report, which Committee was set up by the Labour Government. Then, there was delay. Nevertheless, in the framing of this legislation, as it was admitted on Second Reading and during the Committee stage, we have had to have proper consultation.
How can consultations have taken place on these new Clauses? I should like to ask the Government whether there has been consultation? Have they really taken advice from outside bodies, because there is a difference of opinion? As my hon. Friend the Member for Goole rightly said, the National Farmers' Union point of view is already different to that of the Country Landowners' Association.

Mr. Vane: I do not think that it is.

Mr. Peart: The Parliamentary Secretary says that he does not think it is. I am only quoting from the document mentioned by my hon. Friend and dated 20th February, a document which has been addressed to all hon. Members. The hon. Member for Isle of Ely must have got it. It says, in relation to the Minister's new Clause on drainage rates and the basis of assessment:
The National Farmers' Union welcomes the tabling of this new Clause by the Minister which meets a point raised by the Union in connection with some of the anomalies inherent in the use of Schedule A values as the basis of drainage rates in internal drainage districts.
It goes into much more detail.
Then, the Country Landowners' Association, dealing with the Government's


new Clause, puts the views of the Association in a circular which has been sent to us, also dated 20th February, in which it says that the meaning of this new Clause is far from clear. It goes on to argue the detail, and says:
The amendments would allow such people to ask the drainage board to adjust their assessments to the general average of the district.

Hon. Members: Read on.

Mr. Peart: It continues:
This seems a desirable objective.
I am not denying that. All I am saying is that the Association has argued that the meaning of this new Clause is far from clear. [Horn. MEMBERS: "They support it."] Of course, they support it, but they are not certain. My hon. Friend wanted to know if there had been consultations with the authorities concerned, with the landowners and the N.F.U. on these matters. After all, they have a close liaison with the Ministry, which could easily ring up Mr. Woolley so that the Government could find out what the N.F.U.'s attitude was. The Government could contact them in a jam or crisis. Have the Government consulted the River Boards Association? I should like to know.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. I quite see that all the matter that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) is now propounding is very relevant to the Clauses when we come to them, but what we are really now debating is whether we should go into Committee of the whole House or recommit the Bill to a Standing Committee. That is what troubles hon. Members opposite. The hon. Gentleman's argument is more suitable to the Clauses when we come to them, so why not let us do it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Norman Hubert): I understood the argument of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) to be that there should be more delay so that there may be more consultation.

Sir Douglas Glover: Further to that point of order. I do not know whether there is a Question before the House at the moment, except whether the Bill should go to a Standing Committee.

Mr. Peart: That is precisely what we are discussing. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman was not here, or did not understand my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North, when he moved our Amendment. We are arguing strongly—although we have not yet convinced my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale—that these Clauses should be discussed in a Standing Committee rather than have the procedure of recommittal affecting them.
The Clauses themselves are complicated, and very difficult to understand. They are in what I would call the language of gobbledegook—extremely difficult language—and they should be simplified, not only from the point of view of law but from that of every hon. Member. They could be pruned down. The English is rather diffuse, and difficult to appreciate.
More than that, these Clauses must affect the various organisations I have listed. As the hon. Member must know, the basis of this legislation has been consultation between the various bodies—the landowners, the Country Landowners' Association, the National Farmers' Union, the River Boards' Association, the various local authority associations and all the bodies affected by land drainage. I merely ask at this late stage of the Bill: has there been consultation? We say that if this Bill was again referred to a Standing Committee we would have more detailed discussion, and more opportunities for consultations with the bodies concerned.
I think that I have now convinced even the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover)—

Sir D. Glover: indicated dissent.

Mr. Peart: If not, perhaps he admits that I have made a good try, and I hope that he will sympathise with my point of view. We want a detailed discussion in Standing Committee of Clauses that are important because they affect the financial arrangements. The assessment of the drainage rates are important topics to the rural community, and arouse considerable controversy from time to time.
Another point, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North, is that we have to deal not only with the Clauses but also with the various Amendments. I shall not go into detail


about those Amendments, but as the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely quite rightly said, we must argue some of those when we discuss the merits of each Clause. Here, we have not only Clauses, but various Amendments to deal with. It is quite an unusual step for a Government to take, although the Minister argues that there have been precedents and that there are financial implications. Nevertheless, there are numerous Amendments, and it would be far better to have referred those to a Standing Committee.
Added to that, there is the important issue of the time of the House—and this is where I come back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. I am quite certain that there is no threat to Parliamentary institutions or Parliamentary democracy if we refer detailed legislation to specialised Committees, provided always that we have an opportunity on the Floor of the House to check the results of that Committee's work, not only in principle but in detail. In this case, of course, we would have a Report stage, but I am quite certain that if the Government had so wished, if they had taken our advice and had a Standing Committee we would have saved the time of the House, and the House itself could discuss the broader principles of policy not affecting land drainage but other matters.
For example, we would like to discuss the effect on the rural communities of flooding, something to which, because of procedure, we could not allude in the Committee. We have had great difficulty in referring to the major issue that affects all our standpoints. It would have been far better to have had time on the Floor of the House to discuss this general position.
Again, why waste time here on this when we could discuss other matters? To say that principles of scientific policy are not as important as these two or three Clauses is absurd. I would go further and say that we should have a major debate on agricultural policy. It would be far better to give more time to general discussion of the principles and to allow those details, which, in part, we have argued in Standing Committee, to be left to a Standing Committee—a specialised body. That is why I reject in principle the point argued so very

cogently by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.
I want larger issues of policy to be debated on the Floor of the House—agriculture, drainage, scientific policy defence, foreign affairs, etc., and controversial matters of detail like the National Health Service charges, but a Bill like this, which is of a technical nature and non-controversial, and cuts across party —in Committee, the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton) and the hon. Members for the Isle of Ely and for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) took the contrary point of view to their own Ministers—

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Member said that the Bill was not controversial.

Mr. Peart: I said that it went across party—

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Member also said that it was not controversial.

Mr. Peart: I was using controversy in the sense of political controversy, but, if the hon. Gentleman wants to be pedantic, that is all right.
Although the Bill caused controversy in Committee it went across party. Certain interests were revealed; there were the River Boards Association's representatives, those who take the view of municipal corporations, and others who take the view of the landowners and of the National Farmers' Union. They all put their view, irrespective of party, although I must admit that when the Government put on the Whip rebels opposite inevitably weakened. There was one honourable exception, but I believe that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely time and again did not support us, although he was prepared to strike at the Government.
The Bill was discussed in Committee. We met on ten occasions, and I am quite sure that if we were now given the opportunity we would be able to examine in greater detail and more closely the full meaning of these Clauses. We wish to save the time of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North stressed that point of view over and over again. This is an important Bill and should be argued in close detail —and these Clauses, in particular, should be considered in Standing Committee. That would enable the House to


have more time to discuss other matters, and would also make certain that the Bill was more adequately and effectively discussed.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Dan Jones: As one whose background is wholly industrial, I wondered why I was selected to be a Member of the Standing Committee, but I must say, after attending the Standing Committee, that I was much impressed by the very intimate knowledge that certain hon. Members on both sides have of the factors involved in the Bill. As one who plodded wearily through many sittings of the Standing Committee, trying very hard to grasp the details stage by stage, I feel that I have served my apprenticeship and I wish now to understand precisely what the effect of the new Clauses is. For that reason, I support the Amendment that the Bill should go back to the Standing Committee. My concern is truly based upon what I take to be the views of the local authorities. I confess with no apology at all that I was very much assisted and advised by them, and I have not at this stage the benefit of that advice.
One of my hon. Friends drew to the attention of the House a statement made by the Minister. I wish to bring to the attention of the House something else said by the Minister which seems to support the view now held by the Opposition. On Second Reading, the Minister said:
It could not have been easy to reach such a measure of agreement, for many interests were pulling in different directions, and I pay a tribute—I know that my right hon. Friend, who was responsible for the negotiations, would like to join me—to the broadminded approach of all these bodies to this whole delicate problem which has made agreement possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1960; Vol. 630, c. 36]
The emphasis is clearly upon "all these bodies". I suggest that not the least significant among those bodies would be the local authorities. Quite frankly, I am a little puzzled about the observations made by the Country Landowners' Association because, although at the beginning it says that the meaning of the new Clause is far from clear, at the end it says that this is a desirable objective. There seems to me a contradiction.
This is a very important matter. I do not want to take up time. Those of us

who slogged through the Committee should really have an opportunity to understand a little more about the Clauses before we are asked to decide upon them and submit them to the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), who is not here at the moment, said, in supporting the Minister, that we should all have the benefit of this discussion. I believe that the Minister will agree that our forces were not very strong in the Committee. I recommend that my hon. Friend should join us there. Why not? I should welcome his contributions, quite apart from the fact that his presence would add to our numerical strength. If he feels that interest, he should be able to apply his mind to the matter in that way, and I see no reason why he should not join us in the Committee. For those reasons, which I believe are cogent, logical and forgivable, I support the Amendment.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Bence: I have listened to this debate for about an hour. I very seldom support a Minister of the Crown in this Government, but I feel some sympathy for the proposal that the Bill should be committed to a Committee of the whole House. When complicated Bills of this character are sent to Standing Committees, only a limited number of Members can attend. I do not know what the principle of selection is, but very often people with strong interests are not selected and they cannot make their contributions.

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend will understand that in putting our case we accept, of course, that the Bill should still be discussed on the Floor of the House. We are now arguing only about those parts of the Bill which involve recommittal. There would be a Report stage, and it is right that there should be searching criticism. I hope that when we reach Report and Third Reading my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) will be active in scrutinising the Bill very carefully.

Mr. Bence: Certainly. I and many hon. Members on both sides, I think, who were not on the Standing Committee wish to take this opportunity, when the Bill is recommitted to a Committee of the whole House, to raise important


issues. I have a constituency interest. We look forward to having a full opportunity to examine very thoroughly the Clauses and provisions which are proposed because we did not have the opportunity previously in the Standing Committee. There are, perhaps, twenty or thirty of my hon. Friends who were not on the Standing, Committee but who wish to take part in the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House. It seems most desirable that the matter should be dealt with on the Floor of the House so that we may examine thoroughly the new Clauses and any Amendments which are put down.
I imagine that there is not one constituency in the country which is not affected in some way or other by the implications of the Bill, but we cannot have a Member for every constituency on the Standing Committee. On the Floor of the House, however, everyone who is affected can enter the discussion. I am sure that there are hon. Members opposite who will wish to raise constituency matters as they are affected by the new Clauses.
I have tried to understand the new Clauses during the last three hours, but I am not really sure whether my constituency is affected or not. I should have to listen to a long discussion on them in order to understand exactly what they mean. This is why I am pleased that it is proposed to recommit the Bill to a Committee of the whole House. I hope that we shall have a good Committee stage tonight and that every Member of Parliament will take the opportunity to examine fully these very complicated new Clauses and Amendments.
We shall have the benefit of advice from several lawyers on both sides. The number of lawyers on the Standing Committee is limited. In Committees which I have attended upstairs in the mornings we have very often been short of lawyers, but in Committee of the whole House there are always plenty of lawyers present. There is nothing so illuminating to a layman as hearing the lawyers discuss complicated provisions of this kind. It is fascinating to listen to the discussions in which they clarify these matters.

Mr. Jeger: Is my hon. Friend saying that he would like to have more lawyers taking part in the discussion in order that we might reach agreement or in order that we might be enlightened? I gravely doubt that the lawyers assembled would reach agreement.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): This is going rather far from the Amendment.

Mr. Bence: I do not wish to deal with that point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was advancing what I thought was a reasonable argument in favour of the Bill being recommitted to a Committee of the whole House. On the Floor of the House we can have the advice of many experts, whereas the membership of a Standing Committee must be limited in its selection. For instance, it may be discovered after a Committee is selected that there are first-class experts on land valuation and drainage in the House but who are not on the Committee and that the Committee cannot have the benefit of their advice and expertise. But tonight we can have them all because we know that they are here. There are experts on both sides of the House determined to examine every word of the new Clauses, and that is desirable.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Symonds: As a member of the Standing Committee, although not having a 100 per cent. attendance record, I should like to make one comment. I was paired during the Committee stage and therefore did not hear all the arguments, but I noticed in the closing stages in Committee that congratulations were offered all round because, so it was said, the Bill had been improved. New Clauses were added in Committee. What has happened since all these congratulations saying that the Bill had been improved and that it could be safely recommended to the House on Report? The Minister suddenly discovered that he had left something out, that he had forgotten something. If that is the case, surely the correct place in which to rectify the matter before the Bill comes back to the House is in Standing Committee.
I have heard it said this evening that hon. Members will not get a chance to discuss the new Clauses if the Bill goes back to Standing Committee. I am.


however, convinced that they will get a chance to do so when it comes back on Report. That being so, I think that we should do the right thing in letting the Standing Committee have a look at these new Clauses.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he had not heard much of the Committee stage because he was paired. I suppose that the same thing will happen again.

Mr. Symonds: If the hon. Gentleman would like a pair with me, whether it be of the Eton variety or otherwise, I should be happy, to accommodate him.

Having taken an interest in the Bill, although, unfortunately, circumstances over which I had no control did not permit me to attend every Committee meeting, I believe that the Committee stage helped hon. Members considerably and that they greatly appreciated it. I therefore think that the new Clauses should first go back to Standing Committee so that they can be thoroughly thrashed out and where all the advice possible can be obtained.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 186.

Division No. 59.]
AYES
[6.15 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Holt, Arthur


Aitken, W. T.
Doughty, Charles
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Drayson, G. B.
Hopkins, Alan


Allason, James
du Cann, Edward
Hornby, R. P.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Duncan, Sir James
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)


Atkins, Humphrey
Duthie, Sir William
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Barber, Anthony 
Eden, John
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Barlow, Sir John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hughes-Young, Michael


Barter, John
Elliott,R.W.(N'wc'stle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Emery, Peter
Hurd, Sir Anthony


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bell, Ronald
Errington, Sir Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Berkeley, Humphry
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Jackson, John


Bovine, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Farr, John
James, David


Bidgood, John C.
Fell, Anthony
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Biggs-Davison, John
Fisher, Nigel
Jennings, J. C.


Bishop, F. P.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Bossom, Clive
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Box, Donald
Freeth, Denzil
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Gammans, Lady
Kerans, Cdr. J.S.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gardner, Edward
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Braine, Bernard
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Brewis, John
Gibson-Watt, David
Kershaw, Anthony


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Cot. Sir Walter
Glover, Sir Douglas
Kimball, Marcus


Brooman-White, R.
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Kirk, Peter


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Kitson, Timothy


Bryan, Paul
Goodhart, Philip
Lambton, Viscount


Bullard, Denys
Gough, Frederick
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Gower, Raymond
Leavey, J. A.


Burden, F. A.
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Green, Alan
Lilley, F. J. P.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Lindsay, Martin


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Grimond, J.
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Cary, Sir Robert
Grimston, Sir Robert
Litchfield, Capt. John


Channon, H. P. G.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Longbottom, Charles


Chataway, Christopher
Gurden, Harold
Longden, Gilbert


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Loveys, Walter H.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portemth, W.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Cleaver, Leonard
Harris, Reader (Heston)
McAdden, Stephen


Cole, Norman
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
MacArthur, Ian


Cooper, A. E.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
McLaren, Martin


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Costain, A. P.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Macpherson, Nlalt (Dumfries)


Coulson, J. M.
Hastings, Stephen
Maddan, Martin


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Maginnis, John E.


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Crowder, F. P.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Marlowe, Anthony


Cunningham, Knox
Hiley, Joseph
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Curran. Charles
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Marten, Neil


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Danee, James
Hirst, Geoffrey
Mawby, Ray


d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hocking, Philip N.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


de Ferranti, Basil
Holland, Philip
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hollingworth, John
Montgomery, Fergus




More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Renton, David
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Morgan, William
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Thorpe, Jeremy


Morrison, John
Roberts, Sir Peter (Healey)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Robertson, sir David
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Neave, Airey
Robson Brown, Sir William
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Roots, William
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Noble, Michael
Russell, Ronald
Vane, W. M. F.


Nugent, Sir Richard
Scott-Hopkins, James
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Seymour, Leslie
Vickers, Miss Joan


Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Sharples, Richard
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Shaw, M.
Wade, Donald


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Smithers, Peter
Wall, Patrick


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Ward, Dame Irene


Partridge, E.
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Watts, James


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Speir, Rupert
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Peel, John
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Whitelaw, William)


Percival, Ian
Stevens, Geoffrey
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Stodart, J. A.
Wills. Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Pilkington, Sir Richard
Stoddart-Scoff, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Studholme, 81r Henry
Wise, A. R.


Prior, J. M. L.
Tapsell, Peter
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Teeling, William
Woodnutt, Mark


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Woollam, John


Ramsden, James
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Worsley, Marcus


Rawlinson, Peter
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)



Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Finlay and Mr. J. E. B. Hill.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mapp, Charles


Albu, Austen
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ginsburg, David
Marsh, Richard


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mason, Roy


Awbery, Stan
Gourlay, Harry
Mayhew, Christopher


Bacon, Miss Alice
Greenwood, Anthony
Mellish, R. J.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Grey, Charles
Mendelson, J. J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Gunter, Ray
Millan, Bruce


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hannan, William
Milne, Edward J.


Benson, Sir George
Hayman, F. H.
Mitchison, G. R.


Blackburn, F.
Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Monslow, Walter


Blyton, William
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Moody, A. S.


Boardman, H.
Hilton, A. V.
Morris, John


Bowden, Herbert W. (Lela, S.W.)
Holman, Percy
Moyle, Arthur


Bowles, Frank
Houghton, Douglas
Mulley, Frederick


Boyden, James
Howell, Charles A.
Neal, Harold


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hoy, James H.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby, S.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hunter, A. E.
Oliver, G. H.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Owen, Will


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Padley, W. E.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Paget, R. T.


Callaghan, James
Jeger, George
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Pargiter, G. A.


Chetwynd, George
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)


Collick, Percy
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Cronin, John
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Peart, Frederick


Crosland, Anthony
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pentland, Norman


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kelley, Richard
Popplewell, Ernest


Darling, George
Kenyon, Clifford
Prentice, R. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Ledger, Ron
Probert, Arthur


Deer, George
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Proctor, W. T.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Delargy, Hugh
Lipton, Marcus
Rankin, John


Diamond, John
Logan, David
Reid, William


Driberg, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Reynolds, G. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edelman, Maurice
McCann, John
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mclnnes, James
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Ross, William


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mackie, John
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Finch, Harold
McLeavy, Frank
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Fitch, Alan
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Fletcher, Eric
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Skeffington, Arthur


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mallalieu. J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Forman, J. C.
Manuel, A. C.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)




Small, William
Symonds, J. B.
Willey, Frederick


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Snow, Julian
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Sorensen, R. W.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Thornton, Ernest
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Spriggs, Leslie
Tomney, Frank
Winterbottom, R. E.


Steele, Thomas
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Wainwright, Edwin
Woof, Robert


Stonehouse, John
Watkins, Tudor
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Stones, William
Weitzman, David
Zilliacus, K.


Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Wells, Percy (Faversham)



Swingler, Stephen
White, Mrs. Eirene
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Sylvester, George
Wilkins, W. A.
Mr. Lawson and Mr. Redhead.

Main Question Put:—

The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 187

Division No. 60.]
AYES
[6.25 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
James, David


Aitken, W. T.
Elliott,R.W.(N'wc'stie-upon-Tyne, N.)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Emery, Peter
Jennings, J. C.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Atkins, Humphrey
Errington, Sir Eric
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Barlow, Sir John
Farr, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Barter, John
Fell, Anthony
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Finlay, Graeme
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fisher, Nigel
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Bell, Ronald
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony


Berkeley, Humphry
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kimball, Marcus


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Freeth, Denzil
Kirk, Peter


Bidgood, John C.
Gammans, Lady
Kitson, Timothy


Biggs-Davison, John
Gardner, Edward
Lambton, Viscount


Bishop, F. P.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bossom, Clive
Gibson-Watt, David
Leavey, J. A.


Bourne-Arton, A.
Glover, Sir Douglas
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Box, Donald
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Lilley, F. J. P.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Goodhart, Philip
Lindsay, Martin


Braine, Bernard
Gough, Frederick
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Brewis, John
Gower, Raymond
Litchfield, Capt. John


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Longbottom, Charles


Brooman-White, R.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Longden, Gilbert


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Green, Alan
Loveys, Walter H.


Bryan, Paul
Gresham Cooke, R.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Bullard, Denys
Grimond, J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Grimston, Sir Robert
MCAdden, Stephen


Burden, F. A.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
MacArthur, Ian


Butler,Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Gurden, Harold
McLaren, Martin


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maddan, Martin


Cary, Sir Robert
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maginnis, John E.


Channon, H. P. G.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Chataway, Christopher
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Marlowe, Anthony


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Marten, Neil


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hastings, Stephen
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Cleaver, Leonard
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Cole, Norman
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Cooper, A. E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Mawby, Ray


Costain, A. P.
Hicks Beach, Mal. W.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Coulson, J. M.
Hiley, Joseph
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Montgomery, Fergus


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Morgan, William


Crowder, F. P.
Hooking, Philip N.
Morrison, John


Cunningham, Knox
Holland, Philip
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Curran, Charles
Hollingworth, John
Neave, Airey


Dalkeith, Earl of
Holt, Arthur
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Dance, James
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hopkins, Alan
Noble, Michael


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hornby, R. P.
Nugent, Sir Richard


de Ferranti, Basil
Howard, Hon. G. R (St. Ives)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Doughty, Charles
Hughes-Young, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Drayson, G. B.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Page, John (Harrow, West)


du Cann, Edward
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Duncan, Sir James
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Partridge, E.


Duthie, Sir William
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pearson, Frank (Ciltheroe)


Eden, John
Jackson, John
Percival, Ian




Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Vickers, Miss Joan


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Speir, Rupert
Vesper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Pilkington, Sir Richard
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Wade, Donald


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


prior, J. M. L.
Steward, Harold (Stockport)
Wall, Patrick


prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Stodart, J. A.
Ward, Dame Irene


Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Watts, James


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Studholme, Sir Henry
Webster, David


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Tapsell, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Ramsden, James
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Whitelaw, William


Rawlinson, Peter
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Teeling, William
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Renton, David
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Wise, A. R.


Robertson, Sir David
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Robson Brown, Sir William
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Roots, William
Thorpe, Jeremy
Woodhouse, C. M.


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Russell, Ronald
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Woollam, John


Scott-Hopkins, James
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H
Worsley, Marcus


Sharples, Richard
Tweedsmuir, Lady



Shaw, M.
van Straubenzee, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Smithers, Peter
Vane, W. M. F.
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Peel.


Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John





NOES


Ainsley, William
Hannan, William
Mulley, Frederick


Albu, Austen
Hayman, F. H.
Neal, Harold


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)


Awbery, Stan
Hilton, A. V.
Oliver, G. H.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Holman, Percy
Oswald, Thomas


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Houghton, Douglas
Owen, Will


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Howell, Charles A.
Padley, W. E.


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hoy, James H.
Paget, R. T.


Benson, Sir George
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Blackburn, F.
Hunter, A. E.
Pargiter, G. A.


Blvton, William
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Boardman, H.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bowles, Frank
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pentland, Norman


Boyden, James
Jeger, George
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Popplewell, Ernest


Brockway, A. Fenner
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Prentice, R. E.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Proctor, W. T.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pursey. Cmdr. Harry


Callaghan, James
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Randall, Harry


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Kelley, Richard
Rankin, John


Chetwynd, George
Kenyon, Clifford
Reid, William


Cliffe, Michael
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Reynolds, G. W.


Collick, Percy
Lawson, George
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cronin. John
Ledger, Ron
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Crosland, Anthony
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Ross, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lipton, Marcus
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Darling, George
Loughlin, Charles
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McCann, John
Skeffington, Arthur


Deer, George
McInnes, James
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Delargy, Hugh
Mackie, John
Small, William


Diamond, John
McLeavy, Frank
Smith, Ellis (Stoke. S.)


Driberg, Tom
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Snow, Julian


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sorensen, R. W.


Edelman, Maurice
Malfalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Manuel, A. C.
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mapp, Charles
Steele, Thomas


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Finch, Harold
Marsh, Richard
Stonehouse, John


Fitch, Alan
Mason, Roy
Stones, William


Fletcher, Eric
Mayhew, Christopher
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mellish, R. J.
Swingler, Stephen


Forman, J. C.
Mendelson, J. J.
Sylvester, George


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Millan, Bruce
Symonds, J. B.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Milne, Edward J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Ginsburg, David
Mitchison, G. R.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Monslow, Walter
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Gourlay, Harry
Moody, A. S.
Thornton, Ernest


Greenwood, Anthony
Morris, John
Tomney, Frank


Grey, Charles
Mort, D. L.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Moyle, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin




Watkins Tudor
Williams, LI (Abertillery)
Woof, Robert


Weitzman, David
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Yates, Victor (ladywood)


Wells, (percy (Faversham)
Willis E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Zilliacus, K.


White, Mrs. Eirene
Wilson, Rt. Hon Harold (Huyton)



Wifkins, W. A.
Winterbottom, R. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Willey, Frederick
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Dr. Broughton and Mr.Redhead.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

New Clause.—(DRAINAGE RATES—BASIS OF ASSESSMENT.)

(1) The following provisions of this section shall have effect with respect to any drainage rate made for a period beginning after the end of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-three.
(2) Subsection (4) of section twenty-four of the Act of 1930 (which provides for the assessment of drainage rates on the annual value of agricultural land and one-third of the annual value of other land) shall have effect as if paragraph (a) thereof referred to agricultural buildings (as defined in subsection (2) of section two of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928) as well as to agricultural land.
(3) Where a drainage board have demanded a drainage rate in respect of any land the annual value of which for the purposes of the drainage rate has been ascertained in accordance with the Drainage Rates Act, 1958, then, if—

(a) the land is, forms part of, or comprises land whose annual value for the purposes of income tax under Schedule A has been ascertained by reference to any rent fixed by an agreement commencing after the end of March, nineteen hundred and forty-six; and
(b) the owner and occupier or either of them, by notice in writing served on the board within twenty-eight days of the date on which the demand is made or such further time as the drainage board may allow, claim that the annual value of the land for the purposes of the drainage rate shall be determined by the board under this subsection;

the annual value of the land for the purposes of the drainage rate and any subsequent drainage rate shall be such value as may be determined by the board, having regard to the annual values of comparable land in their district, other than those ascertained as mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection; and subsection (3) of section twenty-nine of the Act of 1930 (which provides for an appeal against a determination under subsection (2) of that section) shall extend to any determination made under this subsection.
(4) Subsection (4) of section twenty-four of the Act of 1930 and the Drainage Rates Act, 1958, shall not apply in the case of land for which a rateable value is shown in the valuation list for the time being in force; but in the case of any such land—

(a) the value on which any drainage rate is assessed shall be one-third of the rateable value so shown; and
(b) the amount per pound at which a drainage rate is so assessed shall be determined in accordance with section (Drainage rates—determination of relative poundage) of this Act.


(5) Where, after an assessment to a drainage rate has been made in respect of any land in accordance with subsection (4) of this section, the rateable value shown in the valuation list for that land is altered and the alteration has effect for the whole of the period for which the rate is made, the rate shall be amended accordingly, and the amendment shall have effect from the beginning of that period and shall be treated for the purposes of the Act of 1930 as an amendment made in pursuance of section twenty-eight of that Act.
(6) Subsection (6) of section twenty-four of the Act of 1930 (which provides for differential rating) shall have effect as if the references to the amount per pound of annual value included references to the amount per pound of the value specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of this section; and any order under the said subsection (6) determining the relative amount per pound of one only of those values shall have effect as if it made also corresponding provision with respect to the other.
(7) References in this section to the rateable value of any land shall be construed, where that value differs from the net annual value, as referring to the net annual value.
(8)The reference in section twenty-eight of the Act of 1930 (which relates to amendments in a rate) to the provisions of Part IV of that Act shall be construed as including a reference to the provisions of this sections.—[Mr. Soames.]

.Brought up, and read the First time.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Soames: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The main purpose of this Clause is to overcome various drainage rating anomalies which have been pointed out to us during the passage of the Bill up to its present stage by hon. Members on both sides and also by outside bodies interested. These representations were made principally—and the Clause was drafted to meet them—by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) and the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton). The anomalies which we are endeavouring to overcome are in both the agricultural and the nonagricultural fields.
First, in the non-agricultural drainage rates are levied, and have been levied since the 1930 Act, on Schedule A values, and the vast majority of properties in internal drainage districts


are based on the Schedule A valuation of 1935–36, but there are anomalies arising when houses built since the war and houses for letting have had a Schedule A value placed upon them which is out of line with Schedule A for the vast majority of the houses. It is, as it were, a modern Schedule A, and this has meant that there has been inequity in the paying of drainage rates by those living in some modern houses compared with those living in houses with the old Schedule A values.
It was not easy to find a way round this anomaly, and I admit to the Committee that we have taken a good deal of time over it, but it was complicated and it was difficult to find a way. The way which we have found is not complicated. It may look complicated as set out in legal words for the Statute, but it is not in principle complicated.
What is it we are doing? We are turning over for this purpose from a basis of charging on Schedule A values to a basis of charging on net annual values as adapted for rating purposes. I mean by that, as the Committee will understand, the net annual value without any derating element in it. That is what subsection (7) means.
We are turning over from charging on Schedule A values to charging on net annual values. This will put all hereditaments other than agricultural ones on the same basis of the net annual value. Agricultural hereditaments, of course, are not valued for local rates, though they have Schedule A value. The drainage rates were always paid on the basis of one-third of the Schedule A value.
The new valuation is coming along and it will take time to get the books altered, but from 1963 onwards, when the Clause comes into effect, the basis will be the net annual value. We shall thus do away with anomalies which have been represented to me most forcibly by hon. Members and particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk and by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). I was worried whether we should be able to find a way out, but I think that hon. Members will agree that this provision finds that way.
I should like to carry the Committee away from non-agricultural to agricultural spheres. Here, again, drainage rates have always been levied on

Schedule A value, because there was no annual value for agricultural land. The vast majority of agricultural holdings in internal drainage districts have had the old Schedule A value of 1935–36. But there are cases where a holding has been divided into a number of new tenancies. One holding of 100 acres, for example, might have been divided into five of 20 acres each. Five houses might have been built, one for each tenancy. The sub-holdings within the original holding would have been revalued in recent years from the Schedule A point of view and would have carried a higher value than the five would have carried together under the old valuation.
To rectify this anomaly we are making it possible for the occupier or the owner to appeal to the drainage board to give him a Schedule A value which would be in line with the tone of the list within the internal drainage district. In other words, a man may say, "I have a holding of twenty acres with a modern house on it and with all the conveniences and buildings. I should like, from the point of view of drainage rates only, to be given a valuation of my property which is in line with the general tone of the list for the internal drainage district as a whole". If he is not satisfied with the valuation put upon it by the internal drainage board he may appeal to the magistrates court.
At the same time as we were preparing this new Clause it was purely a matter of convenience to sweep up Clause 21 of the Bill, which has passed through Second Reading and the Committee Stage and which refers to agricultural buildings being valued along with agricultural land, and put it into this new Clause. This is because it comes in here more logically and will look tidier when the Bill is reprinted as an end product.
Complicated as the wording might be, and I have lived with it for quite a long while, I assure the Committee that it is no more complicated than I fear it has to be. I believe that our aim is fairly easy to see. I hope that the Clause will commend itself to the Committee since its sole aim is to bring about a greater degree of equity in the payment of drainage rates, which in certain areas are rather heavy, than was the case when the Bill was drafted. The heavier the rates are, of course, the more important it is to achieve equity.
I am sorry that we were not able to prepare the Clause in time for the Committee. I should have liked very much to have been able to do it, and it was not for lack of trying that I failed. I suppose that in the end it was a case, as Dr. Johnson said, of the man about to be hanged—that pressure of time concentrated our minds something wonderful.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that the whole Committee will be most grateful to the Minister for having done his best to give an explanation in clear, simple and untechnical terms of what he and the whole Committee recognise to be a highly complicated Clause. The right hon. Gentleman said earlier today that if he could understand it anybody could.

Mr. Soames: I said that if I could understand it, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) could.

Mr. Fletcher: I am prepared to recognise that the Minister understands it, but it would be going too far to say that everybody in the Committee understands it. I, for one, confess that I do not understand it completely. I am sure that the Minister would wish every hon. Member to be quite clear that he did understand it before the right hon. Gentleman asks the Committee to pass the new Clause.
The whole basis on which we are embarking on consideration of the new Clause in Committee of the whole House is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) put it, because wherever possible all hon. Members should try to understand what we are legislating about. Since the Government's time-table is such that they want a Committee of the whole House to occupy itself with these technical matters, I want to assist the Minister by filling the gaps in his speech and trying to make sure that we all understand precisely what we are doing.
I should like to divide my speech into two parts and, first, try to see from the language of the new Clause what it does. then try to recall to the Committee what the Minister said was its object and, finally, see whether we agree that the language carries out the Minister's intention. When we come to that stage, I suppose that it will be desirable to see

whether what is proposed is sensible, whether it corresponds to what various interests and parties want and whether there is anything else that still requires attention.
Since I last intervened in the discussions on the Bill, I have received communications from the National Farmers' Union which have given me a series of new ideas on this subject and have enabled me to look at some of these problems in a new light. I confess that I was hoping that I should not, as a Member, be troubled with a detailed examination of the Bill at this stage. I hoped that this new Clause would first have been ventilated in Standing Committee. However, the House having decided otherwise, I must, like all other Members, do my best to study it in this Committee.
As a matter of convenience, I should like to take the Minister's observations in reverse order. The last point he dealt with was what I believe he referred to as a tidying up operation. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I think I am right in saying that this has nothing whatever to do with the Clause, although it is embodied in subsection (2). He said that he thought it was most appropriately introduced into the Bill at this stage. in order to put agricultural buildings on the same footing as agricultural land for the purposes of drainage rates under Section 24 of the Act of 1930. I hope that this is not tedious for the Committee, but we are at a disadvantage—

Mr. Soames: I believe the hon. Gentleman, when discussing the Motion to recommit the Bill, said that he had not so much as looked through this proposed new Clause. I am sure that he will have found it difficult, in the few minutes that have passed since, to master it.
There is nothing new in subsection (2). Clause 21 of the Bill is to be taken out by a later Amendment, but its sense is retained in subsection (2). Although Clause 21 is to be thrown out, there is nothing novel about subsection (2).

Mr. Fletcher: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. This is, then, a rearrangement. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says and pass on from that point.
The Minister said that the object of the Bill is to remove certain anomalies


which have come to light, first with regard to non-agricultural properties—which are mainly urban properties—and, secondly, with regard to agricultural properties. I appreciate that in nonagricultural properties there may be some inequity between owners of houses where drainage rates are levied on Schedule A taxation of the level of 1935–36, and owners or occupiers of new houses who cone within what he called a modern Schedule A.
As far as I can understand it, I believe that this proposed new Clause is reasonable, and, as far as I have had an opportunity of studying it, I think that the language is appropriate. But I draw the Committee's attention to the representations that have now been made by the N.F.U. The union is probably more familiar with the operations of the Bill than anybody else, and it welcomes the tabling of this Clause. It meets a point raised by the union in connection with some anomalies, but the union does not seem entirely satisfied with it.
The Minister used a phrase which, I have no doubt, is familiar to those who were on the Standing Committee—"tone of the list." He said that an occupier of an agricultural property could appeal for an assessment in line with the "tone of the list". I am not sure whether that phrase occurs in the Bill. I assume that it does not, and that it is not a legal term but jargon adopted as a matter of convenience by those discussing the Bill in Standing Committee. If that is so, then at a later stage I want to see whether the phrase has been adequately translated into appropriate legal phraseology.
It is one thing to use phrases like that and bandy them about in discussion, but quite another to carry out one's intention in a Bill. The union was—

Mr. Soames: Perhaps I might help the hon. Gentleman on this point without further ado. The phrase "tone of the list" is a term understood by those who have been living with this Bill. The legal language is in subsection (3, b) which says that a man may go to the drainage district hoard and ask for a revaluation of his property, and goes on:
…the annual value of the land for the purposes of the drainage rate and any subsequent drainage rate shall be such value as may be determined by the board, having regard to the annual values of comparable land in their district…

We are trying to get equity and to remove anomalies. That is what is known as the "tone of the list". It means that a piece of land is charged in comparable fashion to similar land in the district.

Mr. Fletcher: I think that that language is adequate, but I have been looking at the few following words which the right hon. Gentleman did not quote—
…other than those ascertained as mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection;
In other words, somebody wants to appeal and claims that the Schedule A valuation in his case is not appropriate because the holding has been split up into several holdings, with an improvement in the property, and that the aggregate of the divided hereditament attracts a higher Schedule A valuation than would have been the case had it remained undivided. He asks the board to examine this and consider the annual value of comparable land in the district. The board's function would be to do that by ascertaining rents under subsection (3,a).
7.0 p.m.
The land referred to in subsection (3, a) is
land…or comprises land whose annual value for the purposes of income tax under Schedule A has been ascertained by any reference to any rent fixed by an agreement coming after the end of March, nineteen hundred and forty-six.
That is reasonable, but the National' Farmers' Union says:
While an extension of the tone of the. list principle to areas outside the drainage districts which will be affected by one or other or both of the new charges is clearly both logical and desirable "—
the union is saying that the tone of the list principle should apply to areas outside drainage districts which will be affected by the new charges—
it is recognised that such an extension would impose upon river boards a considerable administrative burden which they are naturally reluctant to undertake having regard to the smallness of the sums to be raised.
That seems to be a fair case and some of my hon. Friends may want to elaborate it. It has been found over and over again that when one tries to do more justice by removing anomalies, one creates fresh anomalies unless one is very careful. There may be an administrative machine set up to deal with anomalies, but that may be a considerable administrative


burden. We must remember that some of the local drainage boards have fairly limited resources for dealing with administrative work.
I do not pretend to be an expert in this matter, sitting for a London constituency and being more familiar with the duties of Metropolitan boroughs and boroughs in the provinces, but we should remember that local drainage boards are a form of local government authority and, rightly, do not possess the same kind of paraphernalia, administrative talent and resources and secretarial staff as that which is available to the great rating authorities such as London, Manchester, the big provincial towns and the county councils. I hope that hon. Members who are familiar with agricultural constituencies and with the staffing of local drainage boards will satisfy themselves that the introduction of this admittedly complicated and cumbersome provision, designed to deal with anomalies, will not place an undue administrative burden on the boards.

Mr. Vane: The hon. Member for Islington. East (Mr. Fletcher) has mentioned a comment in the National Farmers' Union memorandum pointing out that the Clause is concerned with drainage districts and drainage rates but does not extend to river boards and drainage charges. Hon. Members who were not on the Standing Committee may wonder why that distinction has been made. It is a big distinction and it has been made on purpose and for very good reason.
Whereas drainage rates are frequently a heavy burden, drainage charges are something very much smaller, and the general charge and the special charge together cannot amount to more than ls. in the £on the Schedule A value. To extend this operation for removing anomalies from the more concentrated small drainage districts to the much larger river board areas would mean just that sort of work against which the hon. Member has warned us. With much closer knowledge of the small area, the drainage boards will, we are told, be able to do this work without any great effort or expense and will be removing serious anomalies in so doing. But river boards would have the greatest difficulty finding the staff for doing something of the same

sort in their areas, which are very much larger. At the end of the day, there would be very little money in it and more might have been spent on administration than would be involved in the modification of any rates affected. In other words, it would not have been a worthwhile exercise, I hope that that intervention will have helped any hon. Member who may have wondered why we have gone so far but not gone the whole way.

Mr. Fletcher: I will bring my remarks to a close, because this is a long and difficult Clause and all hon. Members are anxious to understand it. The fact that the Minister intervenes from time to time will enable us in the process of time to get a better grasp of the Clause. I do not pretend that I have completely exhausted all the remarks which occur to me, but we are only at the beginning of this stage of the Bill and I prefer to bring my remarks to a close now and, if necessary, to intervene later.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) probably does not realise that an internal drainage district is a rating authority and collects its rates individually, whereas a river board has a precept on county and county borough councils and, therefore, collects its rates in lump sums and does not have the machinery to do what a drainage district would find it comparatively easy to do. It will be especially easy when, as my right hon. Friend explained, the new Clause will not come into force until 1963, by which time people who feel that the alteration will be unfavourable to them will be able to approach the board to get their rating assessment put right.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend is not now present, because I wanted to compliment him and thank him for the new Clause. I have battled with the Ministry over this problem for a long time, and I had almost given up hope. It therefore came as a kind of double bonus when at last the walls of Jericho fell down on 7th March and we got this concession from the Minister.
As my right hon. Friend knows, I am diametrically opposed to many features of the Bill and the way rates should be collected and levied, but I welcome this provision. Even so, if the rate is to be collected on the same basis as in the past,


there will be an enormous sense of injustice when ratepayers find that one farm is paying a grossly excessive charge compared with the farm next door, or that down the road. That sense of injustice will be applicable to agricultural holdings, but it will also be felt by individual householders who, in most drainage areas, will be found to be living in comparatively small houses and facing what, to them, is a heavy burden.
The least that the nation can do is 10 see that the rate is levied on a sound and fair basis. It is possible to find a pair of semi-detached houses where the ownership of one has changed so that one is owned and the other rented and where the drainage rates of one are double those of the other. The sense of injustice which that creates can be readily imagined.
It is with great pleasure that I am able to say that, although I shall be criticising some other things in the Bill as we go along, I think that the new Clause will be very acceptable and very popular in internal drainage districts.

Mr. Willey: I shall not join with the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) in regretting the absence of the Minister. We acknowledge that he cannot be in the Chamber all the time. I should like to join the hon. Member in paying tribute to the Minister. I accept his apologies for sweeping away Clause 31 in this way and the explanation he gave. I did not rise earlier, because I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) might be able to help relate what the right hon. Gentleman said to the Clause before us. Obviously, my hon. Friend, with his acute intelligence, trained in the law and versed in draftsmanship was completely confounded. My own condition is little better. I want to try, in all good faith, to relate what is in the Clause to what the Minister said.
I do not wish to dwell upon the first subsection because we have an Amendment down which may be discussed later. I would only say that the purpose of the first subsection is clear. Whether it is right or wrong is a matter that we may be able to debate later. I cannot say the same about the next subsection. The Minister's claim has the virtue that Clause 21., which we discussed in Standing Committee, has been abbreviated. I

do not welcome that. I must say some thing further about this subsection because it is legislation of a kind that is quite unnecessary and confusing to the ordinary person.
7.15 p.m.
This is a provision which will affect a large number of people who want to know the basis of their assessment for drainage rates. They want to know What steps they can take to satisfy themselves that the assessment is correct. If they are to take all the advantages that are afforded to them by law, they must look to this subsection.
The poor fellow, having looked to this subsection, then finds that he has to buy two other Acts of Parliament—the Act of 1930 and the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928. If he goes to that expense, and is also fortunate enough to have in his library Halsbury's Laws of England, he may be able to understand it, but I doubt whether many ratepayers will have Halsbury to consult.
Why should a man not know what is the provision which refers to the rate of imposition placed upon him? This could be quite clearly set out. We are referred to Section 24 (4) and when we look to the Act of 1930 we find that subsection (4) is quite short. It could easily, at no great expense, be set out here. Incidentally, it is fairly intelligible. If the Government wished to improve the wording, no doubt they could do it. Having turned up the Act and looked at subsection (4) the poor person with the rate demand before him, if he is not satisfied, has to look at the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act. 1928. Then the fortunate fellow with his Halsbury, turns up the appropriate page, which I am now doing, and has to relate it to Section 24 (4).
It is not necessary for me to read out the fairly clear provisions of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928. In fact, it defines in a few lines what are agricultural buildings. In short, we have here five lines which are quite unintelligible to the ordinary person but which, if they were made into ten or twelve lines, could be easily understood.
My complaint about the Government is this. This matter was raised in Standing Committee, and I am sure that


if the Bill were being reconsidered in Standing Committee and if the Minister had the effrontery to come back with a truncated Clause, the Committee would be able to insist on it being reconsidered and a proper provision brought forward at a later stage.
It is time that the Committee, on behalf of the ordinary person paying rates, insisted that ratepayers should not be in the impossible position of not knowing what is the law. This is a field of the law which should be explicit. We have first Clause 21, which we discussed in Standing Committee and which was obscure enough, and now, having discussed the matter further, we have that Clause appearing as a subsection of the new Clause in an even more difficult form to follow. I mention the proceedings in Standing Committee because, as I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say in our earlier discussions, it was out of those proceedings that the provisions of the remainder of the new Clause came into being.
I have refreshed my mind by re-reading what the Parliamentary Secretary said. He said:
I thought that it was a rather light-weight Clause 21 "—
which is now the subsection to which I have been referring—
I thought that it was a rather light-weight Clause dealing with the one simple point of the revision of the position of agricultural buildings and putting it on the same basis as agricultural land.
I shared that impression. I concede that the view was expressed on both sides of the Committee that the present position in regard to Schedule A valuations is anomalous and ought to be corrected, but I would remind the Committee that the Parliamentary Secretary then said:
The question of if and when Schedule A assessments may be revised and brought up to date is beyond discussion on this Clause.
He then referred to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) and said:
I should not like to know what part of his future he is able to foresee…I hope, however, that I have shown that we appreciate that there are certain anomalies which we intend to examine, though I would not like the Committee to think that we are on the way to dealing with them all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee A. 20th December, 1960; c. 314–15.]

I gather the right hon. Gentleman now to be saying, "In this Clause and that which follows it, I am going a long way towards solving these difficulties." My complaint is that this is obviously a revelation to the right hon. Gentleman. If he had been seized of the proposal put forward in the Clause he would have said, in Committee, "I think I have the solution." We could then have discussed it in Committee. I suspect that somebody in the back rooms of the Treasury was working on this at the time. I object to legislation being carried out in this way, especially when it is difficult to relate the provisions of the Clause to what the right hon. Gentleman said in explanation of it.

Mr. Soames: I am not absolutely clear what happened in Committee, but is the hon. Member objecting to the fact that we were not ready with the Clause, and that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that we were trying to tackle the problem and to go as far as we could towards solving it? We are dealing with it on recommittal for the technical reason that a financial element is involved. Is there anything very revolutionary in that? I do not follow the hon. Member's argument. Would he have preferred me to say, "I am sorry. We have got as far as the Committee stage and I cannot go beyond that." This point was brought to my attention not only by Members of the Committee but by people outside, and I have done my best in the matter and have brought it forward now.

Mr. Willey: I do not want to pursue the point, but it is clear that I have been obscure, and I must make my position clear. In the proceedings in the Standing Committee the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary threw out challenges to the effect that, although there were plenty of criticisms of the Government's proposals, nobody could suggest anything better. Many minds were exercised on this problem and many suggestions were made. My complaint is that at this stage, with only a few days' notice, the right hon. Gentleman makes these proposals.

Mr. Soames: A week's notice.

Mr. Willey: I am sorry—a week's notice. But this matter, which has been


the subject of discussions between the right hon. Gentleman and the parties concerned, affects not only drainage rating but rating generally. It allows for local variations in rating. But local authorities have not been consulted. It is not fair for the Leader of the House to announce, as he did last Thursday, that he would get all stages of the Bill today. If the right hon. Gentleman is serious in his proposition we shall not have another opportunity to discuss the matter. I am concerned about the rights of lion. Members as representatives of the different interests which are affected.
I now turn to that part of the Clause which makes the new provision. My first difficulty is that it begins by saying:
Where a drainage board have demanded a drainage rate in respect of any land the annual value of which for the purposes of the drainage rate has been ascertained in accordance with the Drainage Rates Act, 1958 …"
Let us consider again the poor man who has a demand for rates—a demand to make his contribution towards the cost of drainage. He has already had to buy, quite unnecessarily, copies of the Act of 1930 and also the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928. He now finds this novel provision, which is not in Halsbury. This is something new, and only if he has maintained his subscription and has got the continuation volumes of Halsbury will he be able to find out what the 1958 Act does.
I am in some difficulty here. That Act is a very short one, which could easily have been included in the Clause—although I would then have complained of its length. When I carried out some research into that Act I found that it was a Private Member's Measure, which had been introduced by the hon. Member for Melton (Miss Pike), who now graces the Government. In addition, I discovered that I was one of the sponsors. I can only think that the hon. Lady was so persuasive that I came to the conclusion that the Bill had same virtue. I would say, in self-defence, that it was virtually a one-Clause Measure. It was not discussed on Second Reading, although it had some discussion in Committee. As far as I can understand it, the Government deleted the words that the hon. Lady had in the Bill and substituted their own, thus making it even more unintelligible than it was in the form in which I supported it.
I do not wish to go further than to ask the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely, by way of a challenge, whether he is cognisant of that Act and fully comprehends it. If he does, I shall be amazed. I find it very difficult to follow. I have the continuation volume of Halsbury before me. It refers me to the difficulties arising from a certain case and says that the Measure was introduced in an effort to put it right. There it is. Undeterred by the obstacles put in our way we are trying to understand the new provision, but to do that we have had to show considerable resource. We must not only have bought the statutes but we must have understood them. I submit that even with the aid of Halsbury and a copy of the Drainage Rates Act, 1958, it is very difficult to understand the position.
I read the report of the only debate on the Bill. I carefully read what the then Parliamentary Secretary said, and I found great difficulty in following it, but I accept his assurance that this was a welcome elucidation of the law. If necessary we can return to this matter later, when the obligation will be on the Government to explain the significance of the qualifying phrase:
in accordance with the Drainage Rates Act. 1958.
It has to be in accordance with this before this provision starts to run. We await an explanation from the Minister or the Joint Parliamentary Secretary why this qualification should be placed on the operation of this Clause.
7.30 p.m.
The next thing we observe, which I do not think was explained by the right hon. Gentleman, is the reference to the year 1946. Not only must the annual value have been ascertained in accordance with the Drainage Rates Act, 1958, but then only if:
the land is, forms part of, or comprises land whose annual value for the purposes of income tax under Schedule A has been ascertained by reference to any rent fixed by an agreement commencing after the end of March, nineteen hundred and forty-six….
I do not wish to discuss subsection (1), but one of the things which the right hon. Gentleman did not explain was why the year 1963 appears. We can discuss the matter at greater length when we reach the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friends and myself, if it be called, and I am willing to take my chance on it being


selected. We have this reference to the year 1946 in subsection (3, a), and I think that it would be as well if, before proceeding to our discussions on this new provision, we were told why this further qualification has been made relating to that year.
We then come to the substance of the provision, which I think accords with what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East claimed it did, though I say again that the provision is not helped by the fact that we get this reference back to previous legislation. I will not labour the point, but here again, having got perhaps as far as half way—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would agree that my hon. Friend got half way—to comprehending the purpose of the Clause, if the diligent examiner of his drainage demand wishes to know what the law is he has to turn back to the Act of 1930 and look at Section 29, which we are told provides for an appeal.
That is one leg of this new provision. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister on this point. I am not dealing with the merits of the Clause. I will not be dogmatic about this, but I believe that the Committee is with me in thinking that this provision could have been set out in a form that could have been more easily understood. We will come to the merits of the Clause in a moment. I hope that, as we are now on recommittal, we will at any rate get an assurance from the Government that they will look at this again. I say by way of an aside that this is the unfortunate result of not being able to discuss a matter like this in the Standing Committee. If we discussed this in Committee upstairs, these questions could have been ironed out and we could have had the usual Government Amendments at this stage of the Bill.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman dealt with these things in the reverse order, but when we come to the second leg of these new provisions we are no better off. I understood well enough the purpose of this provision as regards the valuation lists. I think that one hon. Member made this point earlier. If we had had an explanatory note about this before discussing this provision, we might have been able to follow the purport of the provision, but what one cannot be satisfied about—or at any rate I cannot be

satisfied about—is that this does exactly what the right hon. Gentleman wants it to do.
We then get a provision about differential rating, which I think is fairly clear. It suffers from the fault and error, that runs throughout the new Clause, of legislation by reference back to previous legislation, but I do not complain too much about that. I think that the provision regarding differential rating is fairly clear.
We then come to subsection (7) which says:
References in this section to the rateable value of any land shall be construed, where that value differs from the net annual value, as referring to the net annual value.
At the moment, I do not understand that. The right hon. Gentleman has not explained why this subsection is in the Clause, and I think that it ought to be explained before we proceed with our discussions. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman is so disturbed that he is seeking advice on it. I hope, therefore, that we will receive some help from him.
That is an impartial and objective examinaiton of the new Clause, and I emphasise the two points which I have made, which have nothing to do with the merits of the Clause. First, whatever the merits of these two new provisions, as the effect they appear to have on the rating system appears to be contrary to the trend which has been followed since the war, there ought to have been consultations at any rate with the rating authorities. As the Government's case in the Standing Committee was that they were very sorry that they could not meet the points that we raised because they felt that this had been done by agreement—which they enshrined in a White Paper—they ought not to have proceeded this far without consulting all the parties to the agreement.
I hope that I got this wrong. I was rather disturbed, because I got the impression from the right hon. Gentleman that he had been in consultation with the National Farmers' Union. I may be wrong, and the right hon. Gentleman can correct me if he wishes to do so. If there were consultations with that body, for which I have the greatest respect, that makes the position considerably worse. Surely we should not


change the basis of assessment of rates after consulting only the ratepayers. Surely we should consult also the rate-raising bodies. I should have thought it was intolerable if there was only partial consultation, but that is a surmise and the right hon. Gentleman can correct me if I am wrong.
The second point is that however lucid and explicit the right hon. Gentleman's explanation was in introducing the Bill on Second Reading, it is difficult to relate what he said then to the provisions in the Clause. As I say, as far as one of the new provisions go, I can see some relation between what he said and what appears in the Clause. In the other case, I find it very difficult to come to such a charitable conclusion.
I do not think that it is necessary to legislate under this cloak of obscurity. I have a great admiration for Parliamentary draftsmen. I think that if they are given the proper direction they can produce something intelligible. As I said earlier, this is where the importance of the Minister is evident. This is not good enough. I protest again about this bureaucratic imposition of legislation. It is our duty to see that all legislation that comes before us is in a form which can be understood. That is all the more important when it is legislation which gives power to raise money by taxation.
I want to refer now to the only two documents, as far as I am concerned, that we have before us. I have not had any representations from the drainage authorities, or local authorities, on this matter. I do not, unfortunately, assume from that that they are satisfied with these provisions. I assume that it had no opportunity to formulate views about it. Of course, a local authority association cannot be expected to formulate its views on an important matter like this within seven days.
We discussed the Heneage Committee proposals from every angle, inside—

Mr. Soames: Upside down and inside out.

Mr. Willey: Yes, upside down and inside out—I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. But this is to be introduced in the last stages of the proceedings on this legislation, so I think that it is an affront to this organisation to behave in this way.
We have before us the views of the Country Landowners' Association and of the National Farmers' Union. But I want to complain about my position. I received these views by post only this morning. From my cursory and preliminary examination of the Clause it is obvious to me that I shall want a good deal of time to consider these things. I want an opportunity to speak about them, and that is what I have not got. If the Leader of the House gets his way, I shall never have it. The Bill will have gone through all its stages and been sent to another place.
Here we have the views of the Country Landowners' Association and, as has been pointed out, its advice does not begin in a very helpful manner. It begins:
The meaning of this new Clause is far from clear.
I have expressed respect for the National Farmers' Union and I would express respect for the Country Landowners' Association. It is a body that is very well advised and equipped. But with the best advice at its disposal and with all its equipment the Association has to begin by saying:
The meaning of this Clause is far from clear.
I say that hesitatingly. Literally, the memorandum states:
The meaning of this new Clause if far from clear
but I think that I can make that verbal amendment and that we should read "if" as "is".
This shows the haste with which such a careful body must have worked to get this memorandum to us. We know that no such body would send a circulated document to all hon. Members without checking it, and obviously, the Association has had to rush this out to get it to us by this morning's post. It goes on:
It affects the basis of assessment for drainage rates in internal drainage board areas only, and its underlying purpose is to remove anomalies in assessment as between one hereditament and another.
The Association's memorandum goes on to give an example and then continues:
The Amendments would allow such people to ask the drainage board to adjust their assessments—to the general average of the district. This seems a desirable objective.


I pause there to say that it is not enough for one of the parties to say of this new provision, "This is a desirable objective." We first have to ask ourselves whether this Clause attains that objective. At the moment, we are in considerable doubt about this. We cannot be sure it does. But, apart from that, there are two other important considerations which we cannot overlook. One is the point I have already made, and I do not wish to repeat it unnecessarily; that even though this is regarded as desirable by one party, if the Government rest their case at the moment on all the parties, this carries us only a quarter of the way.
7.45 p.m.
The other factor which, I think, is of importance is that quite apart from the parties to the agreement which is set out in the White Paper are the views of the other rating authorities. It is all very well talking about the "tone of the list" and all the rest of it, but this is a very retrogressive step to take. It may be justified in this instance, but the idea that this small rating authority can take the action of toning the list is contrary to all modern accepted views about uniformity of rating throughout the country.
I wish to turn now to the National Farmers' Union. It is true that the Union says it welcomes the tabling of this new Clause, because it
meets a point raised by the Union in connection with some of the anomalies inherent in the use of Schedule A values as the basis of drainage rates in internal drainage areas.
Again, I should like to know whether I am right in my suspicions that the Minister has received representations from different parties on this issue separately. If he has, I think that it is quite wrong. If the Minister wished to put forward these proposals, he should have put them forward to the parties generally and got their views.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk and I were both challenged Ito produce ideas. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has in his head, but I have not anything very constructive to offer on this subject at the moment.

Sir D. Glover: That is quite obvious.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged. Obviously, I am being obvious to somebody. I might say that when the hon. Gentleman made his contribution to the debate it was not

so obvious. But I shall have a chance of reading the OFFICIAL REPORT and studying what he said.
From what the N.F.U. has put before us, it is obvious that this is the case. It did put forward these views which have been accepted by the Government. The disturbing thing is what the Union goes on to say. It was on this point that the Government felt themselves in a difficult position, because when my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East raised the point the Joint Parliamentary Secretary sprang up to explain it away. I do not think that he satisfied my hon. Friend and I do not think that he will satisfy the Union. The Union says:
Whilst this meets the Union's case in connection with drainage rates in internal drainage districts, it is to be noted that the same principle is not applied outside internal drainage districts …
The remarkable thing about this is that in this Bill we are dealing with Clauses 1 and 4. That is the whole purpose of the Bill. Here, we get a new Clause which the Union points out has nothing to do with the Bill. This is more extraordinary still. We now get novel legislation which may be justified—we shall hear later from the right hon. Gentleman about the justification for it—but the National Farmers' Union points out that the essence of the Bill before us in this regard is Clauses 1 and 4. I do not think that I exaggerate when I say that the Union expressed with regret that this innovation is not being extended to Clauses 1 and 4. It goes on:
Whilst an extension of the ' tone of the list' principle to areas outside drainage districts which will be affected by one or other or both of the new changes is clearly both logical and desirable, it is recognised that such an extension would impose upon the river boards a considerable administrative burden which they are naturally reluctant to undertake, having regard to the smallness of the sums to be raised. There may well, however, be cases, e.g. of market gardens with large glasshouses, where the Schedule A valuation is a post-war one and where the general or special drainage charge will be a not inconsiderable sum.
I wish to make three points—one of which will be a repetition of a point I have already made—about what is said by the Union. First, the Union says that however desirable this may be, it does not arise out of the Bill. It also says, anticipating what was said by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, that if this duty


were imposed—because this is a duty which is imposed—upon the river boards, it might involve them in a considerable administrative burden. When we are concerned with the drainage board, apparently this does not matter. I hope that I am carrying the hon. Member for Isle of Ely with me in saying that we have shared a dislike for the increase of administrative expenses. We have disliked the mere raising of rates to pay for the cost of raising rates. We want money to be used for drainage, but if we accept what the National Farmers' Union says a good part of the rates may be spent on raising them. I do not think that we can lightly put this on one side.
If this might involve a considerable administrative burden in the case of the river boards, why does it not involve such a similar burden in the case of other drainage authorities? It is true that the Parliamentary Secretary says, Oh, but the amount of the rate they are raising is much less ". I am concerned with the general problem of avoiding unnecessary administrative expense and that is why I hesitate to rush in to support the Minister.
The third point that arises there is equally important. The right hon. Gentleman comes forward, buoyantly and lucidly, and says to the Committee, "I am removing anomalies". But we find he is creating a new anomaly, namely, the distinction between the drainage authorities. I am not satisfied that this will not lead to considerable difficulty and trouble. I suspect that this is possibly a reason why the right hon. Gentleman has not discussed the matter thoroughly with the drainage authorities. This is a matter which should be discussed with them generally.
All I have before me—because, as I say, it has been quite impossible for me to discus this provision with the drainage authorities and the local authorities—is the statement of the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association. The Country Landowners' Association says that this is a desirable objective, but apparently it is hesitant in confirming that this objective is obtained under this new Clause.
The National Farmers' Union says, "We welcome this new provision. In fact, we went to the Minister and suggested it to him." However, when

we examine what they say in support of this new basis of assessment we find two disturbing things. One is the sore problem of ratepayers, whatever the purpose of the rate, having to contribute to the rates to support the necessarily expensive method of raising the rates. I would, therefore, hesitate at the moment at any rate, to support the right hon. Gentleman upon his proposal, and I say, "Look at it again and do not be afraid of discussing this with the authorities affected".
I am very struck by the point made by the National Farmers' Union that the drainage authorities are being divided into two categories. That may be. I do not wish to challenge the good sense of the right hon. Gentleman. He may have a case which he can establish before all the drainage authorities, but I am doubtful about it. I am doubtful either way. The internal drainage board may come along and say that it would rather not have this duty imposed because it is afraid of the expense it may involve. On the other hand, it may equally be that the river boards may come along and say they think that it is excellent and should be extended to them. Before we leave this Clause we should know what the position is. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to tell us explicitly what the river boards have said, through their association, on this new proposal, and what the other drainage authorities have said about it.
I do not wish to appear ungenerous but, while congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the initiative and resource he has shown—an initiative which he has kept well-concealed hitherto in our discussions on the Bill but which should not be discouraged—I must ask him to have confidence to feel that the proposal he is putting to us will be attractive to all the parties affected. Probably, the best course would be to withdraw the new Clause and to have consultations before the question is discussed in another place. At any rate, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have another look at the provision and satisfy himself that it cannot be put with greater clarity. Much more important than the question of clarity—although I would not regard that as unimportant —he should be absolutely sure that the novel proposal he is making is the


correct one and that it is generally accepted by those who will be affected by it.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: It is only right that I should begin by thanking my right hon. Friend for going some way to try to meet the points we put to him in Committee. Hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee will remember that I attempted to make some very considerable alterations to Clause 21. I am afraid that the Committee had a very short time in which to consider the matter, and I realise, after due reflection, that it was, perhaps, too big a mouthful for the Committee to take, or even for the Government to take.
8.0 p.m.
This Clause still ties us to Section 24 (4) of the 1930 Act. It is that which is most in need of reconsideration. It is, however, very difficult indeed to know what the effect of the new Clause will be on what people pay now and what they will have to pay in future. It is clear that what will lie at the root of land drainage rating in the future will be the rateable value and not the net annual value under Schedule A. The root from which all future rating will stem will be the rateable value.
For all I know, this may have the effect of achieving very much what I tried to achieve in moving an Amendment to Clause 21. The effect of my Amendment would have been to alter the amount paid by agricultural hereditaments. In the example I gave, it altered the percentage very considerably in favour of urban property. I did that quite deliberately because I always felt that farmers could be recouped for increased overheads from the Price Review, and I was not unduly worried about that provision. I felt that it would be less favourable to the townsman.
The biggest disparity in drainage rates with which we are most concerned in our constituencies, is not the disparity between farmer and farmer—which is what this new Clause tries to deal with—but principally the disparity between urban and rural. My disappointment is that this new Clause does not go further. We all know what the root cause of it is. The root cause of it is contained in a statement made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government in this

House on 30th November, last year. This is what he said:
No valuations of agricultural property for rating purposes exist. The job of carrying out a complete valuation of agricultural property throughout England and Wales would be so tremendous, coming on top of all the other revaluation which has to be done from now onwards that I am advised that, even if we legislated for it here and now, we could not be ready to start collecting rates from agriculture before 1968."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 400.]
That is what he said when we were discussing the Rating and Valuation Bill. The real cause of our difficulty is the cowardice of the Treasury in facing Schedule A revaluation. Schedule A is hopelessly out of date. The unfortunate Minister of Agriculture is put into a position in which he has to try to even out the tremendous anomalies which have arisen. The Treasury will not give him machinery to do so in a most satisfactory way.
The result is that we are presented with a Clause which brings in all sorts of other Acts. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) challenged me on the meaning of the Drainage Rates Act, 1958. To the best of my recollection, that was to deal with cases where an appeal was pending for Schedule A assessments and, therefore, there was no effective Schedule A on which to levy drainage rates. What the original Clause was I cannot remember, but it was drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike). I suppose we could say, "Hell knows no fury like a woman's claws", however we spell "Clause". The Parliamentary draftsman who had been serving the Minister was the final guide on what eventually went into that Act. The sponsor of that Bill has now forgotten what he sponsored and I do not exactly carry in my head the whole of its terms today, but I think that was the purpose.

Mr. Willey: The hon. Member is to be congratulated on his recollection, but I think he will agree that the difficulty here is the reference to the Act and the relevance of that reference. He would also agree, although he has given a synopsis of the provisions of the Act, that it is still a difficult piece of legislation for the layman to understand.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Of course it is, but the hon. Member made a false paint


earlier when he tried to suggest that unfortunate citizens have to buy copies of the Bill. They have only to go to a public library where they will find a copy available free.

Mr. Willey: It is not easy in the country.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I agree. I know from keeping up to date my manual of military law for eleven-and-a-half years, just what hell it is. I agree that if we can simplify our legislation it will be so much the better, but I do not think that the Minister of Agriculture is to blame. The Minister has done a wonderful job in attempting to iron out as many anomalies as 'possible without the Treasury giving him the real power which is needed, a new Schedule A valuation.
I come to the question of the National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners' Association, the Association of Drainage Authorities and the River Boards Association. I happen to be a member or officer, in one way or another, of all of them. As I understand this Clause, the people most likely to benefit by the machinery it provides will be the Association of Drainage Authorities. That Association has been fully consulted on this matter, although I believe that the drafting of the Clause has been left entirely to the Ministry. There is no question of the Association having any complaint against the Ministry on consultation. That is a point I may raise with my right hon. Friend on the next new Clause, but not on this new Clause, although this new Clause is indirectly affected. On this new Clause the Minister has certainly honoured his obligations over consultation.
I do not think that the Country Landowners' Association or the National Farmers' Union were consulted over what finally should go into the Clause, but negotiations have been going on for more than six weeks and the Association of Drainage Authorities has no complaint to make about that. What has bedevilled our proceedings is that we have been bombarded by various bodies, and the result is that it has been extraordinarily difficult to make up our awn minds on What we think about this issue. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North was taking things a little far when he contended this afternoon that unless

we get all this information we cannot make up our minds about a Bill. That is absolute nonsense, and a complete negation of what Parliament is for. As I said on Second Reading, we are not sent here to represent any of the bodies I have mentioned, but we are sent by our constituents. They are ratepayers and taxpayers and we are supposed to look after their interests. I must resist with the strongest possible vehemence the implication of the hon. Member's remarks. He was denying the right to his constituents and worrying about wheher an association had been consulted.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the hon. Member for giving way, because with his sentiments I wholeheartedly agree. They are sentiments I have expressed on previous occasions. What I said in the context of this Bill, as he will recollect, was that we have put forward proposals to the Government and the Government have said "We cannot meet you. We cannot consider this matter because we are resting on an agreement. There were protracted negotiations and the agreement is set out in a White Paper." If the Government take that view, we ought to be assured that otherwise it will put the agreement into effect. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member further, but, while I fully agree about responsibilities of hon. Members, I think he will agree that the parties affected in any case should have an opportunity of making representations for consideration by hon. Members.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: This is a free country, but the hon. Member seemed to be objecting to the idea of some associations going to the Minister and others not going. Surely it is a question of choice. It is up to the association to go to the Minister and say this, that or the other. We might pass from that point now as we have both had our say on it and it appears that the hon. Member now wishes to agree with me. That is something.
The hon. Member went on to raise the question of the main purpose of this Bill which, he said, was this new new drainage charge. I hotly contest that. It is the main purpose of Part I of the Bill, but no more than that. The main purpose which I find satisfactorily satisfied is


the bringing up to date of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, to enable internal drainage boards to carry out work more effectively than they have been able to do—although I think that most of us agree that they have done their work extremely well.
The suggestion that because internal drainage boards are to get the benefit of this new Clause therefore river boards will be levying the charge in the uplands and must also have the same power, seems something of a non sequitur, to put it mildly. Whatever we do in this Committee we have to remember that very often it comes down to a question of reasonable degree or unreasonable degree. I hope that as few river boards as possible will levy the general charge anyway. In Committee, as hon. Members know, I did my best to get the whole thing down to an agricultural charge so that we could have an assurance that new work would be done, that the money would be spent on that, and not on the general run of the river board. As a result, we have some assurance that the boards will be very careful, indeed, before levying either charge. I therefore think that the incidence that worries the hon. Gentleman will be minute. Even if the incidence is slightly bigger than I think it will be, the measure of the actual charges levied will be so small as to make this issue one that borders on the frivolous
With all the reservations I have felt obliged to make—not because I blame my right hon. Friend; I blame the Treasury for funking the Schedule A revaluation—I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has tried to do. He has gone a long way to help those of us in the rural areas in particular to smooth relations between neighbours who have hitherto, perhaps, been jealous of each other because one has been paying more than the other in drainage rates. That is something to have achieved. If we can say that a piece of legislation has done more good than harm, it is very welcome, and one feels that it should be put into a special category.

Mr. Bence: I was not on the Standing Committee that dealt with this Bill, and after listening for the last four hours to the various contributions from both

sides of the Committee I am getting quite worried. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) has told us that the Members of the Standing Committee were so bombarded with literature of all kinds from all sorts of organisations outside this House that they became almost brainwashed. It is not to be wondered at that we have such confusion, and I must admit that after listening to what has so far been said I am but the more confused.
This is a Committee of the whole House, Mr. Arbuthnot, and I am doing my duty by attending. I must understand these matters, otherwise I shall not be doing my duty. I am certainly not satisfied. I was very surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) suggest that those wanting to know what will result from this legislation should get hold of some volume of Halsbury, read the Measure and in that way learn what they should do. I was astonished to hear him say that. If two lawyers read an Act of Parliament on behalf of their clients one can bet that they will disagree as to its meaning. My experience teaches me that it is very seldom that lawyers agree in interpreting Acts. As I say, I was surprised that my hon. Friend should make that suggestion.
I have been reading the Bill this afternoon, and I am still very confused. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely referred to drainage charges. These are charges levied by the river boards, and river boards in the areas they control have power to levy a charge on owners of hereditaments—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Arbuthnot): Order. The hon. Member must relate his remarks to the Clause we are discussing.

Mr. Tom Driberg: On a point of order, Mr. Arbuthnot—and I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend—

Mr. Bence: That is all right.

Mr. Driberg: The annunciators have broken down, Mr. Arbuthnot—or some of them. Since they are an essential part of the machinery of this House. I venture to submit to you—

The Temporary Chairman: That has nothing to do with the proceedings of this Committee.

Mr. Driberg: Could I make my submission'? With great respect, I suggest that it is a very good reason for asking that the Chairman should report Progress and ask leave to sit again. The annunciators are an essential part of the machinery of the House.

The Temporary Chairman: That is not correct. That does not concern the Committee, but, in any case, I am not in a position to accept a Motion to report Progress.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Peart: Further to that point of order, Mr. Arbuthnot. We have not yet seen any of the Law Officers, and they are certainly needed in connection with a Bill of this kind. We may probably get an explanation from the Government. It may be that the Law Officers are willing to come, but feel that we have not yet reached that stage when their presence is necessary. Perhaps we could have some enlightenment from the Chair, if I am in order to ask that.

The Temporary Chairman: No. That is not a point for the Chair.

Mr. Willey: Further to that point of order. What can we do? It is certainly to the inconvenience of everybody that the annunciators should not be working. Is there anything that we can do to see that steps are taken to inform hon. Members of what is happening in this Committee?

The Temporary Chairman: There is nothing we can do within this Chamber.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Then may I call attention to the number of Members present?

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member would be out of order in doing that during the dinner hour.

Mr. Ellis Smith: What time is the dinner hour—could we be told that?

The Temporary Chairman: Yes, it is in Standing Orders. If the hon. Member looks up Standing Orders he will find it.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Then, under the Standing Order, may I call attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present?

The Temporary Chairman: No, not during the dinner hour.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Could we be told what time the dinner hour is?

The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Bence.

Mr. Bence: I believe, Mr. Arbuthnot, that you had just checked me for talking about the river boards, and said that I was getting out of order in not confining myself to this Clause, but I want to relate that to several statements in the Clause that I cannot understand. For instance, subsection (3) states:
…the annual value of the land for the purposes of the drainage rate and any subsequent drainage rate shall be such value as may be determined by the board…"—
that is the drainage board, not the river board.
When we turn to subsection (4, b) we read:
…the amount per pound at which a drainage rate is so assessed shall he determined in accordance with section (Drainage rates—determination of relative poundage) of this Act.'
I cannot find that anywhere in the Bill. I have searched everywhere, but there is no Clause or Schedule that bears the title:
Drainage rates—determination of relative poundage".
And it has to be noted that the paragraph says: "…of this Act."
Does that relate to the Act of 1930? As I was not on the Standing Committee I may be completely misinterpreting this, but I really do want to know what is happening here. What we are doing, as it appears by this Clause, is to create another body that has the power to tax people. Drainage rates are a tax. We have the Inland Revenue taxing us, the river boards taxing us, the Minister of Health taxing us…we are setting up taxing institutions outside the Inland Revenue all over the country.
I want to know what is meant by:
Drainage rates—determination of relative poundage.
These boards have a right to levy a limited amount of annual taxation, but I cannot find any definition of that limitation. I may get an answer later on, or perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will answer me now…

Mr. Vane: That is the title of the next new Clause which, I hope, we shall shortly be discussing.

Mr. Bence: I see, it is another new Clause. That makes it much easier. When we come to that Clause I shall have something to say about it, let there be no mistake about that. I am very worried about the powers of the central Government to spread their claws into the incomes of the people, and I regard it as my duty to be inquisitive about the different institutions which have powers of taxation.
It has been said many times that, when the new valuation comes on the basis of the annual valuation for Schedule A, this will wipe out anomalies. Drainage boards, river boards and other boards are only collections of persons, and all persons have different ideas. There may be one drainage board adjacent to another board with different persons having different ideas upon it. There may be a quite different environment and people may have different notions about valuation. There may be more anomalies. We see this sort of thing throughout our rating system. Some time ago the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), I think it was, referred to extraordinary anomalies in an area where there had been tremendous flooding.
There will be a river board imposing charges, a drainage board imposing charges, the assessor of the local authority or of the Inland Revenue imposing charges…

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member is going a little wide of the new Clause.

Mr. Bence: This, Mr. Arbuthnot, is the difficulty facing hon. Members who were not Members of the Standing Committee. We are now doing our duty in Committee of the whole House, but we are not quite sure of our ground and we are not quite sure about the language. I wish that we had more lawyers present.

Mr. Willey: Why is my hon. Friend so sure that anyone else is sure?

Mr. Bence: When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has finished his dinner, he will, I think, come in to give us his expert views on the interpretation of

some of the provisions in the Clause. I am not at all clear about it. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will answer some of my questions, and I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will again clarify certain of the difficult provisions in the Clause which seem to give considerable power to a new taxing body, with new rating values to be assessed by the local assessors of the county council.
I am very concerned about what is to happen to many of our citizens in coastal areas where there has been flooding or erosion and in urban areas subject to heavy flooding. Some people will have a tremendous burden added to their already heavy tax burden. I hope that all hon. Members, whether they were on the Standing Committee or not, will raise difficulties of this kind which affect them in their constituencies. There must be a better explanation of what is proposed, and we cannot go on like this with short expositions from the Minister. We must have more detail and we must have the matter put in its relationship with the rest of the Bill. We come to it as strangers.
I have already misunderstood the new Clause on several points and, quite rightly, I have been put right. More should be done both by the Government Front Bench and, I think, by my hon. Friends as well to make the matter clear and to set it in closer relationship with the rest of the Bill for the benefit of those who were not on the Standing Committee.

Mr. Peart: Although my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) has asked that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) should explain the new Clause, it is the responsibility of the Government to do that.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member must address the Chair.

Mr. Peart: I apologise, Mr. Arbuthnot. I was trying to answer my hon. Friend, and, naturally, I was diverting my attention towards him. I was asserting that it is the responsibility of the Government to explain these matters. The Minister in moving the Second Reading of the new Clause very fairly tried to present the reasons why we should end the anomalies.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member must not turn his back on the Chair.

Mr. Peart: I am very sorry. I mean no disrespect to the Chair. My back was slightly turned because I was looking towards my hon. Friend in answering him. I do not wish to have a clash with the Chair today, nor do any of my hon. Friends. We are being very orderly.
I am merely asserting that it is the responsibility of the Government to explain their new Clauses. Although the Minister tried very fairly to explain the matter simply, I am still not sure what the new Clause will do or what its effect will be. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North quoted from a document issued by the National Farmers' Union and showed how anomalies may be created. While we are trying to end anomalies between agricultural and urban areas, new anomalies may arise between internal drainage districts and districts outside or bodies responsible for drainage outside.
I agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) when he says that the Treasury should have taken action long ago. The Minister has a difficult task because there is here involved the whole matter of Schedule A. The failure of the Treasury to give a lead has put the Minister of Agriculture in great difficulties.
Ever since the beginning of our proceedings today, we have not had a Law Officer present. This is wrong. It is a complex matter and even the Minister himself, although he argued earlier that he could well understand the Bill, must, I am sure, take legal advice. Obviously, he must take legal advice from his own Departmental officials who are present.
I see that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) is leaving the Chamber. I intended to ask him something.

Mr. Bence: He does not like it, either.

Mr. Peart: Perhaps the hon. Member does not: understand the Bill and he is going to seek advice outside.
The Law Officers should be present. It would be no hardship. In a complicated matter of this kind, where we are dealing with technical points affecting rating law

and where we have many cross references, we should have the advice of the Law Officers. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will explain why they are absent.
I now come to the question of consultation. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North. Despite what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Isle of Ely, consultation is an important matter. It is fundamental to the Clause and to the Bill. The hon. Member must know that even in the White Paper it is stressed over and over again that this legislation has come about partly through consultation. I should like to quote from the Appendix to the White Paper where the Minister paid tribute to the discussions with other bodies. He stated:
I am glad to say that, as a result of discussions with them "—
that is, the various bodies—
agreement was reached between the four main Associations concerned, namely, the River Boards' Association, the Association of Drainage Authorities, the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association "—
all through we have had this emphasis on consultation—
on the principles which should be adopted for dealing with the main land drainage problems considered in the Heneage Report.
Then, later in the White Paper, there came the full text of the agreed principles.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

Committee counted, and, 40 Members being present—

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Peart: I am glad that the hon. Member for Wokingham is back with us, because I propose to refer to something that he said. I am interested in his constituency, partly because it has a name similar to that of my constituency, but also because of what he said this weekend. Tonight, we on this side are arguing constructively and very vigorously and we hope that Conservative back benchers, if they have the strength, as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Wokingham, will be present during our


proceedings and will argue constructively on these very important measures before us.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that one of the essential requirements in successful combat is to make one's opponents expend themselves with the minimum of exertion on the part of oneself.

Mr. Peart: It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman is expending his energy with the minimum of exertion. I think that applies mentally as well.

Mr. Ellis Smith: In other words, there are too many watching too few do the work.

Mr. Peart: Exactly. I would welcome the participation of the hon. Member for Wokingham, who feels so strongly about this matter, in this discussion on these important measures affecting land drainage in the rural areas and the whole of our people's welfare. I hope that he will participate later in our efforts constructively to improve the Bill.
I revert to the point on which I was arguing with the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely and to which I want a reply from the Minister. Has there been consultation about the new Clause? The hon. Member suggested that there has been consultation with the drainage authorities Can it be said that the National Farmers' Union or the Country Landowners' Association has been consulted, or have only certain organisations been consulted? We do not say that we should necessarily accept the views of these bodies, but we should consider them.
The hon. Member unfairly criticised my hon. Friend. We have never argued that we should legislate purely from consultation. Obviously, the Government must act. On this new Clause, irrespective of the views of the National Farmers' Union, the land owners and other drainage authorities, it is the Committee which must decide. But, in view of the tradition behind the Bill and in view of the consultations that have been taking place, it would be wrong for the Minister to single out certain organisations.
If we are to introduce legislation which is fundamental—and the Clause is fundamental Ito the although we

do not argue that it is the only part of the Bill—all bodies who are affected by previous discussions should have been consulted, as, I think, the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely would agree.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: No, I would not agree. The people who have to implement the Clause are the Association of Drainage Authorities. They are the people who have been consulted. The others are not concerned.

Mr. Peart: I should have thought that everyone is concerned in the matter. The National Farmers' Union is concerned. Local authorities indirectly are affected by the Bill, as are all rating authorities. I am surprised that the hon. Member should say what he has done in view of his constructive approach to the problem. In Committee, he was a shining example to many of his colleagues behind him, although I do not see any of them now. The hon. Member has looked at the matter objectively and constructively. If he examines my argument carefully, he will see that many other bodies are affected apart from the drainage authorities. Therefore, it would be wise and proper for the Government to have consultations. I repeat my main argument without, I hope, being too tedious. The principles of the Bill, the whole of our legislation as affecting the Heneage Report, the Bill itself and this important Clause which the Minister has introduced have all depended in the end on good consultation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland. North has quoted documents, which have been quoted by other hon. Members, revealing the uncertainty about the Clause. The document from the National Farmers' Union shows the anomalies which might be created even by the new Clause, although it seeks to tidy up the existing administrative machinery. It is important for us to have a reply from the Minister. We might well like to consult other bodies. That is why we have argued that we have not had adequate time and that we would have liked the matter to have been discussed in Standing Committee, because of the difficulties and the technicalities of the Clause and because of the need to consult the various bodies who are affected by it.
We are sorry that so far we have had no indication of who has been consulted. I hope that we shall have a reply. I hope that we shall be given a reply also about why no Law Officers have been present to enable us to put some of the important legal points that arise throughout our discussions. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be forthcoming. We make this request in no spirit of obstruction. As I said earlier, the Minister made a fair presentation of his viewpoint as expressed by Clause 1, but I hope that we will be given a specific answer on consultation and on the other matters which I have mentioned.

Mr. Symonds: I spoke earlier this evening in favour of the proposal that the new Clause should be remitted to Standing Committee. In subsection (1), I wonder why the Government state that
The following provisions of this section shall have effect with respect to any drainage rate made for a period beginning after the end of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-three.
Do the Government want all that time to wade through the Clause? Judging by what I have heard tonight, they will want all that and a bit more.
I wonder what advice the Law Officers gave to the Minister. When the Bill was in Committee the Law Officers, I think, must have said that they would make the Clause so complicated they themselves would not understand it. It is full of the most complicated cross references. Subsection (2) refers us to Section 24 of the Act of 1930, and it goes on to refer to
agricultural buildings (as defined in subsection (2) of section two of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928)".
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) had all these Acts before him, but some of my hon. Friends and I myself have not had the opportunity to study them in the last week.
This new Clause is so complicated that it will take not only one lawyer, but several lawyers, to understand it. There are, of course, other similarly complicated pieces of legislation. I suppose that that is why lawyers now receive the fabulous fees that they do—construing these complicated pieces of legislation. This Bill is made for the lawyers. Local authorities and the drainage boards will have to consult lawyers with the purpose of getting interpretations of this Clause.
I have not heard my hon. Friends say that they fully understand the Clause and a certain organisation which sent us all a letter said it was not very clear. I was rather surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said that the Minister had made a fairly good explanation of the Clause. I feel sure that a large number of hon. Members on this side of the Committee still do not understand what the Clause means even after the Minister's explanation.
There is this complicated subsection (4), which says, in paragraph (b):
the amount per pound at which a drainage rate is so assessed shall be determined in accordance with section (Drainage rates—determination of relative poundage) of this Act.
That paragraph does not give any number for the Section or anything at all. Who is to interpret that, and how? My hon. Friends want to know.
Subsection (7) is the priceless one. It says:
Reference in this section to the rateable value of any land shall be construed, where that value differs from the net annual value. as referring to the net annual value.
Again, I say that the lawyers are in for a marvellous time interpreting all this.
But pity the poor individual farmer, the poor individual owner who has an allotment or a greenhouse. Pity him because of the problems he will have in trying to understand what all this is about. That is why I say that the Bill should be sent back to the Standing Committee to give opportunity for further consultation to take place. If the Minister had consulted the various bodies and organisations a good deal of all this difficulty could have been avoided. The White Paper recommends that proposals for a drainage charge should be advertised and should be open to inspection and that the Minister ought to consider any representations made to him where any substantial objections are received.
8.45 p.m.
To avoid all this trouble with the Clause, would it not have been better to have given us an opportunity in Standing Committee to discuss the matter further, and should we not have had a further chance of consulting bodies and organisations which would be responsible for operating the new Clause? I have no explanation up to now of these provisions. I hope that the Government


spokesman will give a lucid explanation of what all these subsections mean and I hope that by the time he has finished every hon. Member will understand their meaning.

Mr. Willey: I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) and some of my hon. Friends have said about the Law Officers. The Committee is obviously in a great difficulty. We had a lucid explanation from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, but I do not think that any hon. Member who has spoken has been able to associate what he said with the provisions in the new Clause.
It is quite intolerable if we are to discuss the Bill in Committee of the whole House with the Law Officers not having the courtesy to be with us. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be the first to concede that this is an extraordinarily difficult Clause to comprehend. I do not think that anyone would deny the simple assertion that the Clause is completely incomprehensible to anyone who is not a lawyer. We should like an assurance, therefore, from a Law Officer that the Clause has the effect which the Minister conveyed he thought it had.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) is here, because I thoroughly agreed with him when he said that it ought to be our purpose to have as much discussion on the Floor of the House as possible. The reason why we wanted the Bill to go to Standing Committee was that if one is to get more than a pint into a pint pot one must first decide one's priorities. But here we are discussing the Bill in Committee of the whole House and there are no Law Officers present. Where are they? They have not been here all the afternoon and evening. It is quite intolerable. We should not depart from consideration of the Clause until they come in.
What duty do the Law Officers owe to the House? Surely it is to attend on occasions like this and help the Committee. Everyone is in difficulties about the Clause. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) has every sympathy from me. We are discussing a new Clause arising out of

Clause 21 and the Government are apparently making a gallant effort to escape from their difficulties. The hon. Member made such an effort in Standing Committee. He tabled at short notice a starred Amendment which suggested a way of tackling, at least in part, these anomalies.
I said to the hon. Member on that occasion:
We welcome the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) back with us. His intelligence is obviously completely unimpaired, but, unfortunately, my intelligence is not sufficient completely to grasp the implications of his Amendment. I do not think he can expect the Committee to accept such an Amendment without having an opportunity to carry out inquiries and to consult the various bodies affected.
The hon. Member has a lively recollection and he will remember that the Committee was not unsympathetic to his effort.
We were not sure, however, that he was able to interpret the advice that he had received from a drainage board in putting forward his proposals. He will realise that the Committee was even unable to be sure that his Amendment had the purpose which he thought it should have.
Here we are again in the same predicament. I thought that on this occasion we should have had the attention of the Law Officers. I say again that we cannot except the Committee to leave this Clause until we have had an explanation and an assurance from them, or from one of them. If we got an explanation from each of them they might be in conflict. This is vitally important. If we discuss a Measure such as the Finance Bill, a Law Officer is always present. We are now discussing a comparable Measure which involves the levying of money. Traditionally, that is a matter which the House, sitting in Committee, should only agree to after the closest scrutiny.
I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will ask somebody to convey the feeling of the Committee on this matter. We have waited long enough. I have complained of the misuse of Parliamentary time. With all respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, we should regard the time of the House as valuable. It is a misuse of that time to allow discussion to become more protracted without our having the


proper advice Which the Government can make available to us.
Having said that, I want to make one or two more general points. After my reference to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely I went on to say in Standing Committee:
I would support him very strongly in what he said about Schedule A. We are disappointed that we have had no statement from the Government indicating their view about Schedule A in general or any statement that these disparities and anomalies are going to be tackled. Unless the Government are prepared to take some action I think the hon. Member is absolutely right and that there are going to be very real difficulties and injustices. I hope the Government will go further than they have so far in assuring us that they are aware of all these difficulties." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A 20th December, 1960; c. 312.]
The hon. Member brought dramatically to mind today in his speech that this is the very thing the Government have not done. That is another reason against accepting this Clause. I agree with him that this would only be a badge of cowardice, but I also agree that this is a matter on which we have waited long enough. We should have some sign that the Government are cognisant of the problem and are tackling it.
There would be danger if we lightly allowed the Government to escape along this route. The hon. Member will recollect that the major matter which attracted debate in Standing Committee and on Second Reading was the anomalies arising under Schedule A. We should not allow the Government to escape from that. We are all thoroughly dissatisfied, as we were in Standing Committee, that we can get no statement from the Government about Schedule A and their intentions.
According to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely spoke for all hon. Members opposite, who are conserving their reserves and articulating through him. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary should pay attention to the view expressed unanimously by both sides of the Committee.
We want the Government to come clean over Schedule A and tell us what their intentions are, and, if Schedule A is to remain, explain how they intend to deal with the anomalies and injustices which arise in its administration. On

reflection, it would be a bad thing to allow the Government to escape from this predicament without their facing the wider predicament. I know how indolent and apathetic the Government are. If they can get out of this trouble they will try to get out of the major trouble which is upsetting hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely disturbed me with something else he said. We had asked questions in Standing Committee, as we have been asking questions today. We did not get answers from the Government, but we got answers from the hon. Member. I had been pressing the Government to tell us what consultations they had had, but the answer was —"not a word". I do not know whether it is disgraceful in their view to hold consultations. However, the hon. Member told us that there had been consultations. I was very suspicious that there had been consultations which the Government had concealed. I give every credit to the hon. Member for revealing them.
However, the disturbing thing is that the hon. Member said that negotiations with the Association of Drainage Authorities had been continuing for some six weeks. Six weeks ago we were in Standing Committee. Why were we not told of these consultations? This only confirms my worst suspicion that the right hon. Gentleman does not know what is happening in his Ministry.
The right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary repeatedly said that they would welcome a solution if they could think of one, and they offered a prize to the hon. Member if he could make a sensible suggestion and a prize to the Opposition if they could find a solution. But all the time some civil servant has been negotiating.
This is not political responsibility, but it is what has been happening under the present Government. We are being run by civil servants. This has been an aggravating political factor over the past few years. If the right hon. Gentleman had gone through the time-honoured channels and passed a note, he could have informed the Committee of those negotiations and gained the credit which he could properly have claimed. But there was not a word. That confirms exactly


what I said earlier today—that the political action is being taken within the Ministry unknown to the Minister. There is a lack of proper responsibility to the House of Commons.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my hon. Friend repeat that?

Mr. Willey: I am anxious to expedite our proceedings. That is why I intervened. I made it clear that I intervened only when the Parliamentary Secretary did not rise to reply. The point I was making—and I say this because I want my hon. Friend's support, which I value —is that too many decisions are being taken bureaucratically, without political responsibility, with Ministers being no more than mouthpieces of the Administration.
What has disturbed us over the past few weeks has been the insensitivity of the Government to Parliament. This is not new. When I was a boy I remember haw the Government took powers from and displaced the Chester-le-Street Board of Guardians because it administered with a little humanity. The Government are now under attack on a matter which affects the humanities and they automatically react insensitively. That is partly because Ministers are detached from the spirit of the House of Commons and partly because, having been the party in office for a long time, they have become indolent and apathetic and are content merely to read the briefs of the Administration.
I understood that the general conclusion of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely was that the new Clause was not objectionable but was frivolous and unimportant. If that is his view, then, with the broader question of Schedule A and the anomalies arising from it, it would be far better not to give the Government what they are asking for but to tell them that although this might be a difficult problem it is one to which they should find a solution.
I know the hon. Member's personal views, but he must not expect me to agree with them. He argued that Part I was not the most important part of the Bill. But it is. I do not want the hon. Member to tempt me into reading the White Paper, because that would not be helpful when we are making progress.

but if he will read the White Paper he will see that the financial aspects are the most important part of this settlement which is based on the Heneage Report. It is anomalous that at this stage we should have a new Clause and be dealing with financial arrangements which will hardly affect the Bill. It is for that reason that I ask the Government to reconsider their approach.
9.0 p.m.
If this were dealing with something arising from the Bill, we would say that while we are very disappointed at the Government's lack of purpose, lack of initiative and lack of energy in dealing with the general broad problem, at any rate they are dealing with problems within the context of the Bill. But that is the very thing that they are not doing, because they say expressly that this new Clause does not apply to the provisions in Clauses 1 and 4. They say that we are dealing, therefore, with something outside the context of the Bill. I say to the Government that if they are doing that, they had better make a good job of it and not deal with this limited, partial aspect.
I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will say, having heard the debate so far, that he is now prepared to take the Bill back for reconsideration and full consultation with the authorities affected. I hope that he will also say that he agrees, even if he does not agree with me so far, that we cannot expect the Committee in any case, to dispose of this new Clause unless we have assurances and explanations from one of the Law Officers.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Unaccustomed as I am to agricultural speaking, I would not wish to deal with the wider political aspect of land drainage which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has so eloquently put before the Committee.
There is one point upon which I should be very glad of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's assistance and exposition. It arises on subsection (2) of this Clause. What subsection (2) does, as we are told, is to streamline what is at present Clause 21 of the Bill. It provides in terms:
Subsection (4) of section twenty-four of the Act of 1930 … shall have effect as if


paragraph (a) thereof referred to agricultural buildings (as defined in subsection (2) of section two of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928) as well as to agricultural land.
That is a style of agricultural eloquence to which personally I would not aspire.
When we come to see what has really happened, so far as I can make out, it is this: we are taking off the burden of drainage rates which hitherto rested half on agricultural land and half on one-third of agricultural buildings, and shifting this incidence so that it falls half on both. I hope that I have put the matter clearly. I see the Joint Parliamentary Secretary looking a little puzzled, so perhaps I should start again.
Section 24 (4) of the Act of 1930 provides for the assessment of drainage rates on the annual value of agricultural land and on one-third of the annual value of other land. The general effect of the Clause is that that subsection will have effect as if paragraph (a) thereof referred to agricultural buildings as well as to agricultural land. The subsection at present provides that a rate made by a drainage board is to be assessed
on the basis of annual value as regards all hereditaments, and, subject to the provisions of this section, every drainage rate shall be assessed at a uniform amount per pound throughout the area (a) in the case of agricultural land, on the annual value of the land; and (b) in the case of any other land, on one-third of the annual value thereof.
We are now applying the provisions of paragraph (a) to agricultural buildings as well as land. At any rate, we are told that that is what the new Clause intends. The result is to increase the burden on agricultural buildings and—since, if the total burden remains the same and the proportion borne by agricultural buildings will be higher—to reduce pro tanto the burden on agricultural land. I hope that I have now made myself quite clear.

Mr. Vane: indicated assent.

Mr. Mitchison: That being so, I am concerned to discover a little more about the definition of agricultural buildings, in a certain connection. Section 2(2) of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, defines agricultural land, and for the moment I do not want to read out the whole definition, which is rather long, unless anybody would

like me to. The term "agricultural buildings" means
buildings (other than dwelling-houses) occupied together with agriculture land or being or forming part of a market garden "—
and I am not concerned with market gardens for the minute—
and in either case used solely in connection with agricultural operations thereon.
Since we are altering the incidence of drainage rates on these agricultural buildings, and therefore, conversely, on agricultural land, I wish to raise the question of the broiler hen industry. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has been discussing broiler hens with the Minister of Local Government. The Bill is concerned with land drainage rates, but exactly the same point arises in connection with rates in general, and I want to know, shortly, in what circumstances a place where one rears broiler hens for market—

Sir Anthony Hurd: There is no such thing as a broiler hen.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I have no doubt that he knows the right name much better than I do.

Sir A. Hurd: They are not hens; they are just broilers.

Mr. Mitchison: May I suggest to the hon. Member, without pushing the matter too far, that if they are broilers they will probably be either hens or cocks? That all comes from not understanding agriculture. No doubt there is some other operation in connection with broilers with which I am not sufficiently acquainted. Would it be correct if I called them broilers?

Sir A. Hurd: indicated assent.

Mr. Mitchison: There is another kind of poultry with which I am concerned at the moment, namely—if I have the word right—chickens.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd): I should be glad if the hon. and learned Member would explain what broilers have to do with drainage rates on land.

Mr. Mitchison: I hoped that I had done that at the beginning of my speech, Mr. Hynd.
What we are doing in connection with the drainage rate is to alter the incidence of that rate as between agricultural land and agricultural buildings. What I am trying to do is to find out what agricultural buildings are, and, particularly in this connection, the question that I want to raise is whether agricultural buildings nowadays do, or do not, include places in which broilers and chickens are hatched and reared under extremely artificial conditions.
This is no new question. It has been raised in court on several occasions in recent years, and there have been distinctions drawn between this type of building in different circumstances, according to the amount of agricultural land that is occupied, and also, according to whether the buildings are used solely in connection with agricultural operations carried out on the land.
The matter is of some considerable importance because, in the North of England particularly, disused mills of various kinds hitherto rated as industrial hereditaments have been occupied and adapted for rearing broilers and hatching chickens, and, in the result, to the detriment of the ratepayers of the district, they have enjoyed immunity from rates as agricultural buildings.
The same question arises in connection with the incidence of the drainage rate. In subsection (2), which deals with this matter, we are asked to alter the incidence of the drainage rate on agricultural buildings. Can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say quite clearly within what limits and in what circumstances places where one rears broilers or chickens under somewhat artificial conditions are agricultural buildings and in what cases they are not?
I do not think that I need go through the various decisions of the courts, but there have been several lately. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because we want to proceed with the Bill. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to throw some light on this, and let me tell him my particular reason for asking.
In another part of the House a Rating and Valuation Bill is being considered, and this kind of question is likely to arise on that Bill. Obviously, it is highly undesirable that one Ministry should have one view of what are agri-

cultural buildings and another Ministry should have another view; and, similarly, that two Statutes should be brought into operation at more or less the same time, one dealing with land drainage rates and the other with rates in general, and that they should provide differently for anything, in particular for agricultural buildings, and the incidence of rates on them.
I hope, therefore, that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, to elucidate the position, will explain in what circumstances the rearing and production of broilers for the market is an industry, and in what circumstances it is an agricultural operation, since that affects the character of the buildings in which it is carried on.
May I go a step further? I believe that recently there have been discussions between the right hon. Gentleman or the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and their opposite numbers in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government about questions of this sort. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether this is one of the questions which has been considered, and, if so, with what result.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. M. Foot: I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is the first legal expert to contribute to this debate. Whether he has assisted the process of securing the result we all want is another matter, which I will not go into. The only legal advice which the Committee has had on the Bill—despite the persistent demands from this side of the Committee—is from my hon. and learned Friend. If any hon. Member opposite has any quarrel about that his quarrel must be with the occupants of their own Front Bench, occupants who have refused throughout the afternoon, and for part of this evening, to supply any other legal advice. Short of action by the Government to remedy this deficiency we shall have to take our legal advice solely from my hon. and learned Friend.
I am prepared to do so. My hon. and learned Friend may not be an expert on agricultural matters, but I am sure that he is a great legal authority and on this matter I am prepared to accept almost all the words that he has uttered. I do not accept his legal views on all subjects, but on this one I will go with him, in the


absence of the Attorney-General. I am sorry to quarrel with my hon. Friends, but I cannot agree that the presence of the Attorney-General would have assisted us. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might have thought that he could bulldoze this matter through the Committee in the same way as he carries all before him in the courts. But had he been present, I think that he would have found that things were not so easy as that.
But that was not the principal point that I wished to raise. When I spoke earlier I was inclined to agree with the Government that it was right that these new Clauses should be debated on the Floor of the House, although, eventually, I was very strongly persuaded by the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends. However, I must say that the more I have listened to the discussion on this Clause the more the view taken by my hon. Friends has been confirmed; and the more anyone has listened to this debate over the last few hours the more he must realise that plenty of time would have been saved had the matter been approached in another way.
The Clause is so complicated that I do not think that any hon. Member could say, with his hand on his heart, that he understood, shall we say, even 50 per cent. of it. This is an extraordinary situation for this Committee to be placed in, particularly in view of the ancestry of the Bill. Not having been a member of the Standing Committee which discussed it, I did not know all the details about the Bill and I dare say that there are few hon. Members on either side of the Committee, who did not serve on that Standing Committee, who have been able to read through all the Committee's proceedings. I have not been able to complete all that reading myself. But if we look back to see the ancestry of this Measure, and how long the preparation has been going on, it is astonishing that we should today, in effect, have something like a new Bill thrown at our heads.
Some of my hon. Friends may not know how long the preparations for the Bill have been going on. It is not just a question of the Second Reading debate having taken place on 14th November. It goes back much longer than that. I do not ask hon. Members opposite to accept it from me, but to accept it on the authority of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). He is not

here now, but he did take part in the Second Reading debate, and if anybody looks at what he said it will confirm to the hilt the point that I am making now.
Do not let any hon. Member underrate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. He is quite a powerful figure in the Conservative Party—a very formidable figure. He can get hundreds of hon. Members to sign Motions. Indeed, one might almost say that the hon. Member has only to sneeze and the whole Treasury Bench catches a cold. So when I quote the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton do not let anybody suppose that I am quoting a second-rate figure in the ranks of the Conservative Party. This is what the hon. Member—[Holy. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Member."] Yes, of course, he is a right hon. Member.
This is what the right hon. Gentleman said about the preparations for this Bill:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) that one has, perhaps, got to ask: is this Bill really up to date? After all, he was not quite accurate"—
that is my hon. Friend, as allegedly said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite—
when he talked about the Bill having taken a long time, because it comes nine years after Heneage reported. The major part of the Bill was drafted twenty-five years ago—twenty-five years ago, when the 1930 Act was not proving very satisfactory and Ministers thought to amend it.
Twenty-five years ago is an elephantine period of gestation if ever there was one. What happened at the end of it? After twenty-five years of preparation they made their preparations so ill that they had to come along at the end of this quarter of a century and rush in a few new Clauses which we are supposed to pass in a very short time.
That is not all that the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton had to say. He had some advice to give to the Government on the operation of the Bill which I have no doubt was very apposite in November, but is it still apposite in February? He said:
We welcome the Bill, of course—we have waited far too long for it "—
twenty-five years was quite a long time—
but I beg the Minister to reconsider some of the problems.


These are the particular words I want the right hon. Gentleman to remember and to mark on his heart:
Do not let us rush the Bill.
That is what the 1922 Committee said and not me, nor my hon. Friends. That is what the dog says that wags the tail.
The right hon. Gentleman goes on:
There is no party issue in it.
We all agree about that.
We are all anxious to bring our drainage law up to date. I fear I may not be here in thirty years' time to speak on the next drainage Bill when it is introduced. I expect that it will be about thirty years before we get it—so I wish the present Bill well, although I do not like all its provisions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1960; Vol. 502, c. 54–61.]
In other words, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton was putting a very reasonable proposition. He was saying that if one only had a Bill every quarter of a century to deal with this very important problem of land drainage one might as well do the job properly. That is a very reasonable proposition. If one is to do the job properly one might as well have the Bill in proper form before it is presented to the House of Commons.
I am not blaming the Minister of Agriculture—I always try to keep on good terms with him. He explained earlier that he had inherited the Bill. He said that there are some advantages in having inherited it and some disadvantages. I could not understand what he meant when he said it, but now that I have examined the full ancestry of the Bill I can understand it perfectly well. The Minister of Agriculture had inherited a Bill which was to deal with a problem which had been piling up for twenty-five years. He had not had very much time, because he had only been appointed as Minister a few days before the Second Reading came and, therefore, he was introducing a Measure which had not been—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. This sounds like a Second Reading speech. Will the hon. Member please talk about the new Clause?

Mr. Foot: I am sorry. I thought I was all right, Mr. Hynd.
One of the difficulties about this whole proposition is that we are dealing not

merely with one new Clause, but with a series of new Clauses which, as I say, if anybody can understand them, make, if not an entirely new Bill, a Bill which is, at any rate, very different from the Bill which the right hon. Member introduced last November. Because it is so different I think that the advice which was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton, although he made it on Second Reading, is still apposite, not merely to this Clause but every other Clause we have to discuss either tonight or on a future occasion.
I conclude by repeating to the Minister and the Treasury Bench the advice of their most powerful back bencher, "Do not let us rush the Bill".

Mr. Vane: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) has been speaking as though this Clause were the heart of the Bill. In fact, the Clause simply removes certain anomalies which various hon. Members on both sides of the House were pressing us to do during the consultations before the publication of the Bill, on Second Reading and in Committee. I think it would be right for us to appreciate that that is the purpose of the Clause and nothing further.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said that he was waiting for me to get up to reply to the debate—otherwise he would not have risen. I was about to do so, but I saw him getting up and I thought that probably he would like to speak before I did. In the earlier stages of his speech he accused the Government of insensitivity, yet previously he had remarked on the number of Amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend which now appear on the Notice Paper. If the Government had been so insensitive in Committee—and I attended every minute of the sittings of the Committee —there would not have been anything like this list of Amendments on the Notice Paper today. I hope the hon. Member will appreciate that this list of Amendments stems largely from the fact that in Committee we tried to meet as many points made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee as we could. Hence we find that some of the Amendments on the Notice Paper are rather complicated.
When a Clause is drafted aimed to deal largely with machinery—and this Clause we are dealing with is concerned with the assessment and collection of drainage rates and nothing more—in the very nature of things it must be written in technical language. In consequence, it will not be easy for all to appreciate its full implication on a first reading, but I think the course of the debate has shown the majority of hon. Members that the meaning of the Clause is not so difficult to apprehend. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) paid what I thought a deserved tribute to my right hon. Friend by saying how in his opening speech he had made the Clause very much clearer for hon. Members to understand. He explained how the purpose of the Clause is not so wide.

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order. There was a Law Officer behind Mr. Speaker's Chair, Mr. Hynd, but he has now gone out of the Chamber. Is that not a gross discourtesy to the Committee?

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Vane: I do not think that in the light of what my right hon. Friend said—

Mr. William Baxter: On a point of order, Mr. Hynd. Are there any powers under the rules and regulations which would permit this Committee to suspend its sitting for a quarter of an hour so that one of the Law Officers could be asked to be present to give an explanation of the meaning of this Clause?

The Temporary Chairman: No, I am afraid not.

Mr. Vane: I do not think it necessary for me to repeat the general explanation given by my right hon. Friend, but I shall endeavour to answer some of the points Which have been raised. First there is the question of consultation. In the main, this Clause concerns the Association of Drainage Authorities. It does not concern any other of the parties to the earlier quadrapartite discussions—if I may use that phrase—to anything like the same extent. Everything in the Bill concerns a great many people, but machinery for assessment and collection is what we are now concerned with and

it is the Association of Drainage Authorities in the main with which we have had consultations. The River Boards' Association is not concerned with this. The National Farmers' Union is, of course, concerned to a certain extent, but this Clause deals with the removal of anomalies and not with the imposition of additional charges.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) spoke as if the Clause were imposing a new system of charges and taxes. It does nothing of the kind. It is aimed to remove a relative number of tiresome anomalies, and does not add to the burden at all—

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am grateful to him for explaining the Clause, but I understood my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) to say, in giving his description of what did apply as a result of this Clause, that it would shift the balance of rates from agricultural land to that agricultural land that can be described as agricultural buildings. Could the hon. Gentleman deal with that?

Mr. Vane: I was coming to that, in time. With respect to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), I do not think that that is one of the major effects of the Clause. I was seeking to reply to the question of consultation raised by more than one hon. Member. I can say that this provision, which concerns intimately the Association of Drainage Authorities, is a machinery Clause and does not add to the charges, and it is with the Association of Drainage Authorities that close consultation has been carried out.

Mr. Peart: I ask a direct question. Even though the drainage authorities are the main people concerned with the Clause —which I accept, although there are others as well—were the National Farmers' Union and the landowners' organisations also consulted? I ask a specific question, to be answered "Yes" or "No". Were they consulted in the drafting of the Clause or as to the policy behind it?

Mr. Vane: No, to the best of my knowledge they were not consulted, but they knew what we were aiming at. It


was certainly their objective just as much as ours to arrive where we have arrived.
Another question asked was whether we were setting up any new anomalies. I do not think that we are. We are removing existing anomalies, and we are not creating new ones. Furthermore, although the hon. Gentleman laid stress on consultation, he also said, and I agree, that ultimately this was Government responsibility. The authorities have no new taxing powers under the Clause. It is an improvement of the existing arrangement that we are seeking.
The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds) asked why the mystic date 1963 appeared at the beginning of the Clause. Until the completion of the new valuation lists it will not be possible to effect any uniform assessment of drainage rates on current values. Hence the date, which is the estimated earliest date by which that current valuation will be completed and we can implement what we here propose—

Mr. J. T. Price: I am rather interested in this comment. I happen to be a Member of the Standing Committee on the Rating and Valuation Bill. When debating these matters over many recent weeks we have been constantly told, in relation to the new valuation due in 1963, that because of the magnitude of the valuation it cannot be applied to agricultural land but is restricted solely to hereditaments—buildings, houses, factories, industrial premises—and is exclusive of agricultural land. I am therefore rather puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's reference to it, because in that Standing Committee we are told by the Minister of Housing and Local Government that the valuers have no instructions to value agricultural land.

Mr. Vane: I think that my right hon. Friend has the hon. Gentleman's point, which will no doubt be deployed in greater detail on the next Amendment. This does not depend on the Rating and Valuation Bill but on the valuation that is now in progress—

Mr. Mitchison: I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but this is really very interesting. Is there

a valution of agricultural land in progress for rating purposes? I understood the Minister of Housing and Local Government to object the other day to the imposition of rates on agricultural land on, among other grounds, the ground that there was no such valuation.

Mr. Vane: I think that I can answer the hon. and learned Gentleman by saying that we are not concerned with an assessment for rates on agricultural land, because no assessment exists or is being made. We are concerned with two different anomalies. We are concerned with the current assessment of rates for dwelling-houses, and in subsection 3 of the Clause we are dealing with the Schedule A assessment of agricultural land. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman is a great expert on rating matters, and he asked me two questions of which I felt he knew the answers better than I did. One question related to agricultural buildings. They will under the Clause in future be treated as agricultural land which will, in effect, mean a very slight change in the proportions, but nothing really, I think, to affect the main provisions. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me also about broiler houses. I think the answer to that question is "Normally, yes", but I am advised that there is a case under appeal now and, therefore, it is really not in my power tonight to give an authoritative reply which would cover all cases.

Mr. Mitchison: If the hon. Gentleman answers the question "Yes", that answer depends on which question is put. Are broiler houses agricultural buildings or industrial hereditaments? Will he make his reply a little clearer?

Mr. Vane: I am sorry. When I said, "Yes", I meant that normally they were agricultural buildings.

Sir Leslie Plummer: Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider a point he made in Committee when, in reply to an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), he said:
I can see my hon. Friend's argument that, in general, the agricultural industry that stands to benefit most from land drainage is frequently paying what would seem to be a smaller share when compared with various


dwelling houses alongside".—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee A, 20th December, 1960; c. 315.]
If nothing is to be done until 1963, the anomaly referred to by the hon. Member will continue for another two years. Does not the Clause as drafted deny the words of the Parliamentary Secretary himself in Committee on 20th December?

Mr. Vane: I do not deny those words, but the point is not entirely relevant to the Clause except in so far as it admits that anomalies exist. In the main, of course, we are meeting the point which the hon. Member for Deptford makes by imposing, for the first time, through the general and special charges which are not referred to in the Clause, a contribution to land drainage and so much more closely arriving at a balance.
I have answered a great many points raised by hon. Members and I hope that they will now accept that, although the Clause has had to be drafted in a technical language, there is nothing sinister about it. It sets out, with, it must be admitted, a certain ingenuity, to meet the anomaly which was admitted to exist on both sides of the House and the Committee and which it was known we were trying to meet if we could. I submit that we have succeeded in going much further than most hon. Members would have thought likely in meeting this very real anomaly, and I hope that they will now let us have the new Clause.

Mr. Loughlin: At one stage in our discussions, I thought that we were having light thrown on the legal terminology of the Clause, and I appreciate that the Minister in moving the Second Reading of it tried to avoid using legal terminology. When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) was performing the functions which, apparently, the Government's Law Officers cannot perform in trying to explain to the Committee what some of the terms mean, he said, if I remember aright, that the new Clause was designed to alter to some extent the burden of rates imposed by the Act of 1930 as it applies today in the apportionment of rates as to one-half on agricultural land and one-third on agricultural land described in the Act as being buildings. There is, therefore, a change of balance in the cost of the rates to the owners of agricultural land and building.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, in answer to an intervention which I made, that there would be no change at all. He also said that he would deal with the point later in his speech, but when he came to the point he gave the Committee no information at all. As there is to be a change from one-third to one-half concerning the rateability of agricultural land on which there is a high proportion of agricultural buildings, there is a shift in the rate burden on the owners of that land. I may be wrong. I am merely accepting the opinion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering, which has not been contradicted by the Government Front Bench. We have made numerous complaints that there are no Law Officers on the Government Front Bench. It appears to me that the Government Front Bench is not even bothered about the persistent complaints of hon. Members. I think that that is discourteous to the Commitee, to say the least.
My biggest problem concerning the Clause is that I am a layman. As a layman I am not expected to understand and to try to sort out the ramifications of the law. I have a right to expect that the Government will explain the legal position so that we may do our job properly in examining the Bill. [Interruption.] The Minister seems to find that funny. Either we treat the Bill seriously, in which case the Government have a responsibility to place before us adequate explanations of the legal issues involved, or we can take the Minister's attitude and consider that this is one of those things about which we can make jokes.
There are fifty-four lines in the new Clause, with references to Sections, subsections and Acts. It deals with Section 24 (4) of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1930, with Section 2 (2) of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, with Schedule A and with the Drainage Rates Act, 1958. It mentions Sections and subsections ad infinitum. How can lay Members on this side or that side of the Committee possibly begin to understand the implications of the Clause unless we have an explanation of the legal aspect from the Government Front Bench? As I have said, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering put forward his opinion, and the Parliamentary Secretary failed to deal with it. Then, in spite


of another interjection asking for the information, he again failed to give it.
9.45 p.m.
This is a wonderful Government. At 3.30 this morning, we discovered that they were incapable of drafting a Bill, so that all our discussion in the early hours of this morning came to nought.

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he is getting far away from the new Clause.

Mr. Loughlin: You had not allowed me to complete my sentence, Sir Gordon. How do we know that all these references to Acts, Sections, subsections and paragraphs are correct? We might well be in the same dilemma as last night and in another three hours' time somebody will find it out. We may find that all the explanations that we have had from the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, all the free legal advice which has been so readily tendered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering and all the attempts to get information from the Government benches, have come to nought. I would not trust them at all—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that even if one of the hon. and learned Gentlemen were to come here, his advice would be worth accepting? Is it not better to have them out of the Committee because their legal advice is not worth accepting?

Mr. Loughlin: I do not want to cast any reflections on the legal ability of Members of the Government Front Bench.
It is wrong for the Government to treat the Committee in this way. It is wrong for the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who speak on behalf of the Government, not to take the steps necessary to ensure that the Committee has the information and explanations to which it is entitled. The Government Front Bench should arrange, if not for this Clause, for subsequent

Division No 61.
AYES
[9.50 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Atkins, Humphrey
Baxter, Sir Beverlay (southgate)


Altken, W. T.
Barber, Anthony
Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton


Allason, James
Barlow, Sir John
Bell, Ronald


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Barter, John
Bennett. F. M. (Torquay)

Clauses and Amendments, to let us have the necessary legal information that would guide the Committee in the right way.

Mr. Willey: I think I am conveying the feeling of the whole Committee when I say that I very much appreciate the contributions made by the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. They have tried to help us in our discussion of this difficult Clause. The fact remains, however, that the Law Officers have shown a contempt for the Committee. One of them was seen near the Chair, but he withdrew. This is bringing Parliament into disrepute. Nobody who has listened to our discussions would deny that this is particularly a matter on which we should have the advice of the Law Officers. They have not come.
As I said earlier, I want to expedite our proceedings. I do not want to hold up discussion unnecessarily. The course that I would advise my hon. Friends to take, therefore, is to vote against the Clause. I do that although I still have an open mind upon it, but I have not been satisfied that it will meet its objectives. I am not satisfied that it serves the purposes that the Minister believes it to serve.
Moreover, there are other matters which disturb us, particularly the failure of the Government to meet the wider problem. I do not, however, want unnecessarily to pursue this discussion. We have Amendments on the Paper, which may well be selected, which will allow us an opportunity to discuss further matters arising under the Clause. In the light of the discussion, recognising the failure—I do not attribute it entirely to them—of the Government Front Bench to meet the arguments which have been raised, I suggest that we should follow the only alternative open to us to express our disapproval of the Clause.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 237, Noes 164.

NOES


Ainsley, William
Bacon, Miss Alice
Blackburn, F.


Albu, Austen
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Blyton, William


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Boardman, H.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leis, S.W.)


Awbery, Stan
Benson, Sir George
Bowles, Frank

Berkeley, Humphry
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G,
Noble, Michael


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Gurden, Harold
Nugent, Sir Richard


Bidgood, John C.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Biggs Davison, John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Bishop, F. P.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Black Sir Cyril
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Bossom, Clive
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Partridge, E.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Box, Donald
Hastings, Stephen
Peel, John


Boyle, Sir Edward
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Percival, Ian


Braine, Bernard
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Brewis, John
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Brooman-White, R.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Prior, J. M. L.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hiley, Joseph
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Bryan, Paul
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Bullard, Denys
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Burden, F. A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ramsden, James


Butler,Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hooking, Philip N.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S)
Holland, Philip
Rees, Hugh


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hollingworth, John
Rees-Davies, W.R


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Holt, Arthur
Roberts, Sir Peter (Healey)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Robson Brown, Sir. William


Chataway, Christopher
Hopkins, Alan
Roots William


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hornby, R. P.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Hornsby-Smith, At. Hon. Patricia
Russell, Ronald


Cleaver, Leonard
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cole, Norman
Hughes-Young, Michael
Sharples, Richard


Cooper, A. E.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Shaw, M.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Smithers, Peter


Costain, A. P.
Jackson, John
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Coulson, J. M.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Speir, Rupert


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Jennings, J. C.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Stodart, J. A.


Crowder, F. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Cunningham, Knox
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Curran, Charles
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Tapsell, Peter


Currie, G. B. H.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kershaw, Anthony
Teeling, William


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kirk, Peter
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


beetles, W. F.
Kitson, Timothy
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


de Ferranti, Basil
Leavey, J. A.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S)


Doughty, Charles
Lilley, F. J. P.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Drayson, G. B.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


du Cann, Edward
Longbottom, Charles
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Duncan, Sir James
Longden, Gilbert
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Duthie, Sir William
Loveys, Walter H.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vane, W. M. F.


Elliott,R.W.(N'wa'stle-upon-Tyne,N.)
MacArthur, Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McLaren, Martin
Vickers, Miss Joan


Errington, Sir Eric
McMaster, Stanley R.
vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)
Wade, Donald


Farr, John
Maddan, Martin
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Fell, Anthony
Maginnis, John E.
Wall, Patrick


Fisher, Nigel
Manningham-Butler, At. Hn. Sir R.
Webster, David


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Marten, Neil
Whitelaw, William


Freeth, Denzil
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Gammans, Lady
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Gardner, Edward
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Mawby, Ray
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gibson-Watt, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R.J.
Wise, A. R.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Mills, Stratton
Woodhouse, C. M.


Goodhart, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus
Woollam, John


Gough, Frederick
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Worsley, Marcus


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Morgan, William



Green, Alan
Morrison, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Gresham Cooke, R.
Neave, Alrey
Mr. Finlay and


Grimond, J.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Mr. Chichester-Clark.


Grimston, Sir Robert
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Boyden, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Randall, Harry


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rankin, John


Brockway, A. Fenner
Kelley, Richard
Reid, William


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Kenyon, Clifford
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Key, At. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Lawson, George
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Ledger, Ron
Ross, William


Chetwynd, George
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Cliffe, Michael
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Collick, Percy
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Crossman, R. H. S.
Logan, David
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alloe
Loughlin, Charles
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Small, William


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McCann, John
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Deer, George
McInnes, James
Snow, Julian


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Sorensen, R. W.


Delargy, Hugh
Mackie, John
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Diamond, John
McLeavy, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Steele, Thomas


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Manuel, A. C.
Stones, William


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mapp, Charles
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Finch, Harold
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Swingler, Stephen


Fitch, Alan
Marsh, Richard
Sylvester, George


Fletcher, Eric
Mason, Roy
Symonds, J. B.


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mendelson, J. J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Millan, Bruce
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Forman, J. C.
Milne, Edward J.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Thornton, Ernest


Gordon Walker, At. Hon. P. C.
Monslow, Walter
Tomney, Frank


Gourlay, Harry
Moody, A. S.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Grey, Charles
Morris, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mort, D. L.
Warbey, William


Hannan, William
Moyle, Arthur
Watkins, Tudor


Hayman, F. H.
Neal, Harold
Weitzman, David


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hilton, A. V.
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Whitlock, William


Houghton, Douglas
Oswald, Thomas
Wilkins, W. A.


Hoy, James H.
Owen, Will
Willey, Frederick


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Padley, W. E.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hunter, A. E.
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Wilson, At. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Janner, Sir Barnett
Peart, Frederick
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Jeger, George
Pentland, Norman
Woof, Robert


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Zilliacus, K.


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefieid)
Popplewell, Ernest



Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Probert, Arthur
Mr. Redhead and Mr. Howell


Jones. Jack (Rotherham)
Proctor, W. T.

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Questions Put

That the Proceedings on the Land Drainage Bill be exempted. At this day s String, from the Provisions of standing Order No. I (sittings, of the House)—[The prime Minster]

The House Divided: Ayes 240 Noes 162

Currie, G. B. H.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Dalkeith, Earl of
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pilkington, Sir Richard


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hughes-Young, Michael
Prior, J. M. L.


Deedes, W. F.
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


de Ferranti, Basil
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Jackson, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Doughty, Charles
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Ramsden, James


Drayson, G. B.
Jennings, J. C.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


du Cann, Edward
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rees, Hugh


Duncan, Sir James
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Duthie, Sir William
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Elliott,R.W.(N'wc'stle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Roots, William


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Errington, Sir Eric
Kershaw, Anthony
Russell, Ronald


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Kirk, Peter
Scott-Hopkins, James


Farr, John
Kitson, Timothy
Sharples, Richard


Fell, Anthony
Leavey, J. A.
Shaw, M.


Fisher, Nigel
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smithers, Peter


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lilley, F. J. P.
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Freeth, Denzil
Litchfield, Capt. John
Speir, Rupert


Gammons, Lady
Longbottom, Charles
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Gardner, Edward
Longden, Gilbert
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Gibson-Watt, David
Loveys, Walter H.
Stodart, J. A.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
MacArthur, Ian
Studholme, Sir Henry


Goodhart, Philip
McLaren, Martin
Tapsell, Peter


Cough, Frederick
McMaster, Stanley R.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Teeling, William


Green, Alan
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Gresham Cooke, R.
Madden, Martin
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Grimond, J.
Maginnis, John E.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Grimston, Sir Robert
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Gurden, Harold
Marten, Neil
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R H


HarrisReader (Heston),
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
van Straubenzee, W. R


Harrison, B[...]lan (Maldon)
Mawby, Ray
Vane, W. M. F.


Harrison, Co'. J. H. (Eye)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mills, Stratton
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Montgomery, Fergus
Wade, Donald


Hastings, Stephen
Morgan, William
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Morrison, John
Wall, Patrick


Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Neave, Alrey
Watts, James


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Neave, Airey
Webster, David


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
wells, John (Maidstone)


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Whitelaw, William


Hiley, Joseph
Noble, Michael
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Nugent, Sir Richard
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hirchingbrooke, Viscount
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wise, A. R.


Hooking, Philip N.
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Holland, Philip
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Hollingworth, John
Partridge, E.
Woollam, John


Holt, Arthur
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Worsley, Marcus


Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Peel, John



Hopkins, Alan
Percival, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hornby, R. P
Pickthorn. Sir Kenneth
Mr. Finlay and




Mr. Chichester-Clark.

NOES


Ainsley, William
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fletcher, Eric


Albu, Austen
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Chetwynd, George
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cliffe, Michael
Forman, J. C.


Awbery, Stan
Collick, Percy
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Crossman, R. H. S.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Gourlay, Harry


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Greenwood, Anthony


Benson, Sir George
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Grey, Charles


Blackburn, F.
Deer, George
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Blyton, William
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hannan, William


Boardman, H.
Delargy, Hugh
Hayman, F. H.


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Diamond, John
Hilton, A. V.


Bowles, Frank
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Houghton, Douglas


Boyden, James
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hoy, James H.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Finch, Harold
Hunter, A. E.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Fitch, Alan
Hynd, John (Atterclife)

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Mitchison, G. R.
Snow, Julian


Danner, Sir Barnett
Monslow, Walter
Sorensen, R. W.


Jeger, George
Moody, A. S.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Morris, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Moyle, Arthur
Steele, Thomas


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Neal, Harold
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Stones, William


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby,s.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Jones, J. Idwa` (Wrexham)
Oswald, Thomas
Swingler, Stephen


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Owen, Will
Sylvester, George


Kelley, Richard
Padley, W. E.
Symonds, J. B.


Kenyon, Clifford
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Lawson, George
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Ledger, Ron
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Thornton, Ernest


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Peart, Frederick
Tomney, Frank


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Pentland, Norman
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wainwright, Edwin


Logan, David
Popplewell, Ernest
Warbey, William


Loughlin, Charles
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Watkins, Tudor


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Probert, Arthur
Weitzman, David


McCann, John
Proctor, W. T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


McInnes, James
Randall, Harry
Whitlock, William


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Rankin, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Mackie, John
Reid, William
Willey, Frederick


McLeavy, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield E.)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Manuel, A. C.
Ross, William
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Mapp, Charles
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Marsh, Richard
Skeffington, Arthur
Woof, Robert


Mason, Roy
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Zilliacus, K.


Mendelson, J. J.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)



Millan, Bruce
Small, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Milne, Edward J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Mr. Howell and Mr. Redhead

Orders of the Day — LAND DRAINAGE (RECOMMITTED) BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, to leave out subsection (1).
The purpose of the Amendment is to leave out the subsection, which says:
The following provisions of this section shall have effect with respect to any drainage rate made for a period beginning after the end of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-three.
An hon. Member asked where that date came from, and I am sure that the Minister knows better than I do that it conies from the 1959 Act. The Act provided for the postponement of new valuation lists and postponed the coming into effect of Section 45 of the Local Government Act, 1948.
Why are the Government so assured about this date? The earlier date was written in all good faith in 1948 but was not implemented. It would have been a wise precaution if they had referred to the new valuation lists rather than specifically to the end of March, 1963.
However, I have more specific arguments against the subsection. The first is that, until the right hon. Gentleman moves his Amendment, we still have Clause 21. I may be wrong in my interpretation, but I gather that that Clause will not come into effect until 1963. I want to know why the Government have taken this decision. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) looks as though he is not following me. Subsection (2) of the Clause is an abbreviated form of Clause 21.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I thought that Clause 21 came later, and that we were to have an Amendment to leave it out.

Mr. Willey: Yes, we will leave it out because Clause 21, in an abbreviated form, is subsection (2) of this Clause. In effect, the Government are saying, "The proposals we made in Clause 21 shall be deferred until 1963."
10.15 p.m.
When we discussed Clause 21 in the Standing Committee we had no glimmering of this intention on the part of the Government. I wonder whether it is

merely another example of careless drafting, or whether the subsection appears in the wrong order. It is remarkable that only a short time ago we were discussing Clause 21 and now we have it in an abbreviated form, and that the coming into effect of the Clause is being deferred. We are entitled to an explanation why the Government are taking this step. I do not say that they have not good grounds for doing this, but we are right to inquire about it.
The third and equally important point was touched upon in our earlier discussion. The right hon. Gentleman, in the Clause, is doing two things. He is toning up—if that is the right technical phraseology—and is also providing for the effect of the valuation lists. These are two separate things. One is affected by the date in subsection (1) while the other is not so affected. Again, under this subsection we have not only that part of the new Clause which concerns the new valuation lists but also that part which concerns Schedule A.
The subsection is ill-conceived. If it is right that it should appear in the Clause it should relate only to the valuation lists. It seems remarkable to take out of the 1959 Act a certain provision and to say, "This shall affect not only the valuation lists but also the question of agricultural buildings and of the anomalies under Schedule A." I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to satisfy us that this is not merely loose drafting hut that there is an acceptable reason for it.

Mr. Soames: I take the hon. Member's points. As he said, 1st April, 1963, is the date at which the new valuations will come into force and it is only then, when we will have a more realistic and up-to-date net annual value of all hereditaments, that we shall be getting the level basis which we are seeking in order to bring about a greater degree of equity. He asked what would happen if we did not have the new rating valuation by 1st April, 1963. I can only say that the Government are quite confident that there is no reason why it should be held up. I agree that it was postponed, but we have no reason to suppose that it will not come into operation by 1st April, 1963.
Meanwhile, if it were not to happen, we should have to do it on the existing


valuations for the period from 1st April, 1963, which would not be so equitable as the new ones. I have no reason to believe that we will not have the new valuations within this period of time so that it can come into force on 1st April, 1963.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we applied subsection (1) to the Schedule A provisions. I do not think that he was arguing against 1st April, 1963. He asked why we did not put this in in relation to these hereditaments and go for the net annual value, as opposed to putting it at the beginning of the Clause covering the lot. This is a considerable shift of emphasis and will involve a lot of work by the drainage boards. We would not want to do it in the middle of the financial year, in any event. It was either 1st April, 1962, or 1st April, 1963. We have been living with these anomalies for some time, and the neat and tidy way to do it was to get rid of them all at once and to do the whole thing on 1st April, 1963. We could not have done it before 1st April, 1962. The neat and tidy way was to do it all at the same time. That includes the agricultural buildings.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point on Clause 21. That would have come into operation as and when it could have been brought about with the extra work involved. Again, we do not think that that could have been done before 1st April, 1962. Our reason for putting it at the beginning is that we are trying to sweep away these anomalies and bring about this greater equity in one operation. We have, therefore, put the subsection at the beginning of the Clause.

Sir D. Glover: Subsection I says:
…. made for a period beginning after the end of March…
As I understand it, that does not tie one to 1st April. If the rating provisions are confirmed, in a short period after that are we tied to 1st April, or to a point some time after 31st March?

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is correct. It is after the end of March. We said after the end of March, bearing in mind that it would come in on 1st April when the new valuation lists started.

Mr. R. T. Paget: It is difficult for me to follow this argument. I was not here during the earlier part of the debate and I apologise for my absence. Perhaps if I had been present I would have understood the argument.
As I understand the argument, it is that the existing basis of valuation on which the rate is assessed is grossly inequitable as between parties. If it be grossly inadequate, surely it ought not to be continued longer than is necessary. As the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) pointed out, this does not commit anybody to a particular date. The subsection says:
The following provisions of this section shall have effect with respect to any drainage rate made for a period after the end of March…
I gather that that means that if they do not get the valuations through then, or for any other reason, they can deal with it as and when it arises. That being so, why March, 1963? Why not where we are now or when this Bill starts? As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, this is a longish process. Why not work it out as it comes along? Each as they deal with it could be brought on to the new basis.
Again, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend, regarding subsection (2) referring to the agricultural land and buildings, I gather that is to be on the rateable basis. I do not know whether the Minister can explain this to me; perhaps it has been explained already. Why is this being introduced here in substitution for Clause 21? Part of Clause 21 was omitted in the reproduction as subsection (2) of this new Clause.

Mr. Soames: Nothing has been omitted which leads to anything fundamental. It is better and more abbreviated drafting. There is nothing which Clause 21 would have enshrined in a Statute which this subsection does not do.

Mr. Paget: It is just a case of a second attempt enabling something to be said with economy.

Mr. Soames: indicated assent.

Mr. Paget: That would be almost a good enough argument for a new Clause at any time.
When one looks at this new Clause there is another expression which is even longer and more complicated, and that is almost as horrifying a thought. But I am most grateful to the Minister for his explanation.
In subsection (3) we are dealing with Schedule A which will not, as I understand it, be affected by the new rating valuation. Therefore, it seems odd that one should wait for the Schedule A changes until the rating valuation comes in when the rating changes do not affect the Schedule A changes. The Minister's case for this seemed to me rather odd. Apparently, it is because this whole process would involve the accountancy departments of the various drainage boards in a lot of work. Surely that is all the more reason for giving them the opportunity to take two bites at it. Why not let them get on with the Schedule A changes which are in subsection (3) and wait for the others?
In subsection (4), again one has to turn to the 1930 Act. All this legislation by reference makes it extremely complicated and the result is that Acts of Parliament become more and more unintelligible.
10.30 p.m.
Subsection (4) provides that:
Subsection (4) of section twenty-four of the Act of 1930 and the Drainage Rates Act, 1958. shall not apply in the case of land for which a rateable value is shown in the valuation list for the time being in force; but in the case of any such land—

(a) the value on which any drainage rate is assessed shall be one-third of the rateable value so shown; and
(b) the amount per pound at which a drainage rate is so assessed shall be determined in accordance with section (Drainage rates—determination of relative poundage) of this Act."

Again, perhaps I am not following this entirely, but why for the operation of subsection (4) do we require a new valuation? Looking at this, it seems that what may be convenient for the purpose of subsection (2) is being generally applied to a number of subsections to which it does not seem to be really applicable. I should be most grateful if the Minister would reconsider whether he really wants subsection (1) for any more than subsection (2).

Mr. Loughlin: I am a little worried about the wording of the subsection. I

may be wrong, but in view of what the Minister said in answer to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), I am probably right. The impression gained from what the Minister said previously, and it was confirmed by his reply to his hon. Friend, is that the intention is that the provisions of the Bill shall apply from 1st April, and in consequence of that, subsection (1) reads:
for a period beginning after the end of March".
My knowledge of legal terminology is very limited; it has been restricted largely to Statutory Instruments and certain other matters. The usual terminology to convey the intention about the operation of a Statutory Instrument is to say that it will commence after "a" given period of time. If we were referring to statutory holidays and the qualifying period for them, we should refer to "the" period after a given date. The subsection says:
made for a period beginning after the end of March".
Could "a period" be a limitation of time as distinct from the period "being an unlimited period? Surely this is borne out by the Minister's statement that the intention is that the Bill shall apply after the end of March, that being 1st April.
If the Law Officers were present they might be able to give us guidance. We might be able to refer to similar terminology in previous Measures where questions of errors have been raised. In view of what he said about 1st April, perhaps the Minister ought to ascertain whether the subsection should read "the period" instead of a "a period".

Mr. Harold Davies: The language of this provision presents me with no difficulty. All that is said, putting it into plain English, is that drainage rates shall be assessed after a period beginning at the end of March, 1963. It could be any period, or in any year. It may not even be in 1963, so long as it was after the month of March.
I am concerned with something else. There are two kinds of valuation envisaged. The Rating and Valuation Bill is being considered in Standing Committee and we know from the work that we have done in that Committee that


there are to be new methods of assessment on agricultural and industrial properties. I feel that an extraordinarily heavy burden is going to be placed on some areas and that some of the smaller farming areas may not get value as a result.
I should like to know how this relates to the provisions of Part V of the Finance Act, 1949, under which Income Tax allowances can be made by means of deductions from the assessment on property. That Act states that in assessing the amount charged on land by a public rate or assessment in respect of draining, fencing or embanking, and the amount expended by the landlord or owner of the lands on an average of the twenty-one preceding years in the making or repairing of sea walls, embankments, tidal rivers or other acts connected with drainage, the amount expended is calculated over an average of the preceding twenty-one years.
What effect will that have? Unfortunately, there is no Law Officer present, but the Committee ought to be told what effect this provision will have on these allowances in respect of draining, fencing or embanking, which are specially written into the 1949 Act.

Mr. Soames: If I may interrupt the hon. Member, it will make no difference whatsoever.

Mr. Davies: That answer came very quickly. In saying that, of course, I intend no insult to the Minister. However, I should like to know if the Minister has taken advice on the relationship between this provision and the Finance Act, 1949.

Mr. Soames: indicated assent.

Mr. Davies: We shall have to wait and see whether it will make no difference at all, but I am afraid that there will be some difficulties and anomalies in claiming deductions from Income Tax

Mr. Symonds: I do not propose to detain the Committee for long, but there are one or two small matters which are worrying me a great deal. The Minister may probably be able to clear up the points for me. Subsection (1) of the Clause states:

The following provisions of this section shall have effect with respect to any drainage rate made for a period beginning after the end of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-three.
Surely the same sort of proviso could have been inserted stating "after the end of March, 1964." "After the end of March" is any time after that date. The Clause does not state specifically that it shall be 1st April, 1963.
Are are Government waiting to see if we are to have a General Election in 1963? There may be some such thought in the mind of the Government. We shall also have a rating and valuation Measure coming into operation at that time.
There is also something else which to me is important and which may have a bearing on what I have said. Subsection (3, a) of the Clause states:
the land is, forms parts of, or comprises land whose annual value for the purposes of income tax under Schedule A…
Schedule A plays a very important part here. Now what happens? Hon. Members opposite are in favour of the abolition of Schedule A. Let us assume for a moment that Schedule A is abolished—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The Amendment refers only to subsection (1) which deals solely with the date at which the proposed new rate should commence.

Mr. Symonds: Schedule A has been mentioned on several occasions by hon. Members and I am referring to it because it is of vital importance in connection with the Clause. If Schedule A is abolished the Clause will have to be redrafted. I think that in the best interests of everyone the Minister should have another look at subsection (1) and should tell us whether he means 1st April, 1963, 1964, 1965 or 1966. I shall probably be able to say something further on this issue later. In my view, the Clause should be taken back and redrafted in a totally different way.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

Committee counted, and, 40 Members being present—

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Symonds: As I was saying, I hope that the Minister will have a further look at this and take into consideration what


has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). This is vitally important to the whole of this Clause, particularly to Schedule A and the commencing date of 1st April, 1963, as I understand it probably will be.

Mr. Soames: If I may, I will answer one or two points made by hon. Members on this Amendment. First, as to whether it is "a period," or "the period." "A period" is used in land drainage language. I direct the attention of hon. Members to Section 26 (2) of the 1930 Act, which says:
Subject as hereinafter provided, every drainage rate shall be made in respect either of a period of twelve months or a period of six months…
That is why it is "a period," because it can be either twelve or six months at a time. It also says:
the last day of the period shall be the last day of the financial year.
Hence the hon. Member will understand why it is "a period" and, since it is:
the last day of the financial year
why it should be 31st March, 1963.

Mr. Paget: I can well understand from what the right hon. Gentleman has said why in the case he mentioned "a period" is given because two periods are mentioned; but here there is only one period. I should have thought that when referring to only one period if we use "a," the indefinite, in opposition to "the," which is definite, it means not the period immediately after, but "a," the indefinite, any period after that date. The example which the right hon. Gentleman has given I should have thought was grammatically quite different.

Mr. Soames: I do not think that it is very complicated. It was in respect of any drainage rate made for a period, that is for a period of twelve or six months beginning after 31st March, 1963. I do not think that it is very complicated.

Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Hynd. This is a serious issue. It is a question of whether there has been a drafting error. I ask for your guidance because, if there is a drafting error, this Committee is incapable of dealing with this Bill.

The Temporary Chairman: I am sorry, but I do not think that is a point of order.

Mr. Soames: I can assure the hon. Member that there is no drafting error. The point I want to make is a serious one in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) about why we included in this time scale beginning on 1st April, 1963, subsection 4, why we included the agricultural property which is not going to be on a net annual value basis but which will remain on the Schedule A basis.
There are a number of points here. I think that the main one, which will appear to him the readiest, is that within an agricultural hereditament we have the land, the agricultural buildings, which will be valued like the land, and the farmhouse, which will be on the net annual value which hitherto has been on Schedule A like all houses. Drainage rates have been levied on the Schedule A value hitherto, but when this Clause comes into operation everything that can be rated will be on the net annual value basis. It will not be until April, 1963, that we shall have this new valuation which will make it as equitable as we should like it to be.
We are not going to have the whole agricultural hereditament—that is the land, the buildings and the farmhouse—on the same basis after April, 1963; hence this is included. This may be straying nearly out of this order, but it is necessary in answer to the points which have been made, to say that this applies not only on this Clause but on the new Clause which is to follow—and hon. Members will be aware of the question of relative poundage. Not until we have the net annual value fixed and assessed on the new basis so that it is levied throughout shall we be able to work out the sum as between Schedule A and net annual value. That is why the whole operation should begin on 1st April, 1963.

Mr. Willey: The right hon. Gentleman should not persuade me to turn to the next new Clause. I have read it only fourteen times, and do not yet understand it, so I shall not succumb to his invitation.
The Committee will be largely persuaded by what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The point made by my hon. and learned Friend for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is a valid one, but there is a good deal of substance in the


Minister's statement that we may as well deal with all this at one time. I am sure that he will also recognise that this is a different view from that which the Government must have taken in the Standing Committee, and that there is a very great deal in what we have said. If, as I assume, I can he assured that the Minister will look at this again when this Bill is considered in another place, I should be perfectly willing to beg to ask to wthdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, to leave out subsection (3).
I move the Amendment for two reasons. This is really a most horribly drafted subsection—it really is a shocker. This is the "tone of the list" principle incorporated in legislative form, and with the most benevolent good will I find it extremely difficult to be fully seized of the effect of the subsection. It is largely for that reason that I have put down the Amendment.
I have referred to one thing in particular on a previous occasion and I do not want to elaborate on it now; it is this reference to the Drainage Rates Act of 1958. Although tempted, I did not refer in detail to this. I am obliged to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) for his recollection—which was largely accurate, as one would have expected from him—but this provision was the result of a case, and it affected the position where there was an appeal.
I cannot see why, in the present subsection, all this should be made conditional upon and flowing from the Drainage Rates Act, 1958. As I say, I have given notice of this point and do not want to canvass it unduly. The introductory words are:
Where a drainage board have demanded a drainage rate in respect of any land the annual value of which for the purposes of the drainage rate has been ascertained in accordance with the Drainage Rates Act, 1958 …
On the face of it, it would seem that this considerably circumscribes the effect of the subsection.
The other matter about which I wish to make inquiry is the insertion of the date, 1946. The Government select dates.

In an earlier subsection, they have shown that they had a good reason for the selection, but here we have:
…commencing after the end of March, nineteen hundred and forty-six…
I should have thought, having been persuaded by my hon. Friend, that the wording should follow the wording we have just discussed in subsection (1), where we have
…for a period beginning after the end of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-three.
The wording here is
…commencing after the end of March, nineteen hundred and forty-six…
I am not so much concerned about the difference in wording, except that it shows an inelegance of draftsmanship which I can only attribute to haste and panic which, again, confirms our view that the Clause has not been fully thought out. As this was a matter that was referred to at some length in our discussion on the Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time", I take no more of the advantage of moving the Amendment than to seek elucidation of these points in particular.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Member will know, of course, that, if his Amendment were accepted, it would prevent us from bringing about the removal of anomalies where agricultural land is concerned because it is this subsection which will enable owners and occupiers who are on a recent and unusually high Schedule A assessment to appeal. However, I see the point he makes. He did not have very long to consider the matter and he wished to have a discussion on the subsection, as I understand it, on an Amendment to leave out the subsection as a whole instead of taking it in detail and moving to leave out or amend certain words. I must warn the Committee that acceptance of the Amendment would have a drastic effect upon the Clause and upon all our efforts to remove the anomalies, and I hope that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) is quite clear about that.
We use the words
…commencing after the end of March, nineteen hundred and forty-six…
because it was after 1st April, 1946, that these revaluations on Schedule A took place. There were not any before then. This is to differentiate between the old valuations on Schedule A which relate


to the vast majority of hereditaments, the 1935–36 valuations, and what are to them the inequitable valuations which all came about after 1st April, 1946. In order to differentiate between the two, this date has to be inserted, and, indeed, it is in order to bring about more equity and bring the second valuations down to the level of the first that the subsection is introduced.
The reference to the Drainage Rates Act, 1958, means, in effect, that the land is land leased on the actual Schedule A value, as compared with subsection (4) where assessments would be based on the rating list. I hope that that answers the questions which the hon. Member put to me.

Mr. Mitchison: There is an absolute line drawn at the end of March, 1946. Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I should have thought that in changes of this sort the process of change would be a gradual one, and to draw a line at any particular date would result in anomalies as between rent agreements made shortly before and those made shortly after the date in question. No doubt there is a reason for it, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will indicate what it is.
Later in the subsection it is provided that the land has to fulfil the conditions in (a), and, as regards (b), there has merely to be a notice asking for determination in a given way. Then it is provided that
…the annual value of the land…shall be such value as may be determined by the board, having regard to the annual values of comparable land in their district …
I do not quite understand that. What we are dealing with here is cases which are guided by, if I may use that expression, rent agreements after the end of March, 1946. It is to deal with them that the Clause is introduced.
11.0 p.m.
We were told by the right hon. Gentleman, if I heard him aright, that there were real differences between land valued for Schedule A as before and as after that date. When we come to what is comparable land in the district, it looks as if we should include valuations, of both kinds, that is to say, valuations made on the earlier and valuations made on the later arrangement. While no

doubt this may be clear to people who are better acquainted with the Schedule A arrangements in this case than I can claim to be, it is certainly not quite clear if we look at the subsection by itself.
Then I think the remaining matter is simply the extension of a right of appeal and the substantial point is the one I have put. I think that I put it rather clumsily and if the right hon. Gentleman would allow me I will try to repeat it, but if the right hon. Gentleman understands it, then I will ask him particularly to remember, as a former War Minister, the man who was kept to read despatches in the War Office.

Mr. Harold Davies: If one looks at this provision carefully one can easily put it into simple English. What amazes me is that all the time we are getting legislation by reference, although many of the people who have to deal with this will be in the country districts, on farms and other places, and they will find it very difficult to understand legal language. I criticise the language used, and put it into clear and simple English. What the Minister is saying here is that where a rate has been demanded it should be demanded under the Drainage Rates Act, 1958. That may not be clear legally but it is clear semantically. Then the owner or other people concerned have a form of appeal which can be made and can allow the board to make the assessment of the land. We are told how the board makes it—by reference to the Act of 1930. That is all it says. Why could not this be put more simply in the Clause?
I do not want to delay the Committee, but this brings me to a Report drawn up and presented when the Labour Party was in power and was concerned with getting a comprehensive policy not only for drainage but for water conservation. A special Committee was set up and its Report is Cmd. 7122. I quote from page 75:
…we cannot but draw attention to the fact that the present lack of a co-ordinated policy has direct bearings upon our particular problem.
And the kind of co-ordinated policy the Committee was talking about was for national water resources and the extent and incidence of sub-surface and surface—

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): The hon. Member is going far beyond this subsection.

Mr. Davies: Yes, but I am coming back to it.

Mr. George Brown: Taking the loopline.

Mr. Davies: This effort of the Minister to be fair has resulted in more and more anomalies and more and more difficulties, because there is a complete lack of a Government policy for land drainage. There are only bits and pieces of land drainage legislation, and they are pointed to in this new Clause, which is another demonstration of legislation by reference, which makes it almost impossible for us to take a clear approach to this vital problem of land drainage and the conservation of water supplies.

Mr. Mitchison: I want to raise two other points and in that way I hope to save the Minister from having to get up repeatedly to answer questions. I understand the substance of the Amendment to be that in certain circumstances if someone is dissatisfied with the Schedule A valuation he may serve notice and then the annual value of the land shall be such value as may be determined by the board. Apparently, under paragraph (b) the owner and occupier, or either of them, may serve notice to bring this subsection into operation. They will do that presumably because they think that they will get a better deal from the operation of the Clause, that is from the board itself, than by leaving the matter otherwise in its normal condition.
I should have thought that it was a rather dangerous position to allow either of these people to raise that point, for the reason that it is, after all, a matter of almost hazardous estimate in some cases and certainly a matter of judgment. One may take one view and one may take another, and if we allow either to raise it, the owner, for example, may force upon the occupier a reconsideration by the board which the occupier does not want to have done and which may prove to be a loss for the occupier. Where there are two interests in the same land, I should have thought that it is wrong in principle to claim special adjustments, the effect of which cannot be known beforehand—in short that

each man should be allowed to make up his mind what he thinks would be best for him and no action should be taken by the one without the concurrence of the other.
The second point is one of principle which I believe has been raised before. I am unaccustomed to speaking on agriculture and therefore I raise it with a certain amount of diffidence. But to the ordinary person unaccustomed to these things it is very strange that even at the request of the owner or occupier the rating authority, that is to say the board, should itself be allowed to value the property upon which the rate is to be levied.
I do not know what precedents there are for this. It seems to me extraordinarily dangerous to allow a rating authority to assess the valuation on which the rate is to be levied. We in this Committee have had occasion before now to consider this kind of question in connection, for instance, with the recommendations of the Franks Committee. As a matter of principle, both sides of the Committee have tried to dissociate the judicial or semi-judicial, or at any rate the decision maikng element or an authority from its executive function. This Clause does exactly the opposite and enables the executive authority—the board in this case—to reach a decision which ought to be the decision as to what the rateable value of the property is, but tends inevitably to be a decision slightly in favour of the board.
It is just to avoid that sort of conflict between the duty of someone exercising a semi-judicial function and his personal interest that we take great care not to put anyone in that position of having to decide a matter of truth or correctness when it is in his interests to decide it one way.
Because this type of arrangement involves that conflict, I cannot forbear to say that, whatever the precedents may be and however convenient it may be and however many people may have agreed to it, it is fundamentally wrong in principle that the rating authority should itself decide the valuation which will determine the amount of rates to be paid to that same authority. That seems to be the position in which the boards will be placed.
On that ground alone, and it is of major and vital importance, the Committee should hesitate a long time before either enacting or re-enacting this method of determination.

Mr. Soames: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) has an internal drainage district in his constituency, or whether his constituency touches an internal drainage district. But his speech about the Government not having a conservation policy and the Clause therefore being unnecessary will not go down very well in internal drainage districts. Anybody familiar with the difficulties and anomalies occurring in internal drainage districts at the moment will be very glad to see the Clause coming into operation.

Mr. G. Brown: I do not believe it.

Mr. Soames: In his wisdom as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) does not believe it, but we can leave it to the wisdom and judgment of those who live in these districts. We have no doubt that this arrangement will be of considerable advantage to them and that it will be felt to be more equitable, which is what we are seeking. The Clause is an endeavour to give a greater degree of equity, as I have said—and I apologise to the Committee for having said that over and over again in the last few hours.

Mr. Harold Davies: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to get more equitable distribution, but does he not appreciate that that is legislation by reference?

Mr. Soames: I was coming to the hon. Gentleman's accusation about legislation by reference. The Clause refers to Section 29 of the 1930 Act but it says:
… (which provides for an appeal against a determination under subsection (2) of that section) …
This is perfectly normal practice. The only choice was to repeat something already on the Statute Book, or to refer back to the earlier legislation indicating that it provided for appeal against determination, so that people would know what it was about, and would know where to look and the way in which an appeal could be made. It is quite reasonable. It is not trying to duck out from anything. It is merely to prevent the Clause

being about twenty lines longer. If the hon. Member reconsiders the matter, I do not think he will feel that we are running counter to the interests concerned, or impeding the provisions of the Clause in any way.
11.15 p.m.
The hon. and learned Member talked about whether the end of March, 1946, was the right time to adopt, and whether we should put down a fixed list, because the movement of rents was probably gradual over the period. But we are not dealing with the movement of rents; we are dealing with the alteration of Schedule A values after March, 1946, when new houses were being built and new Schedule A valuations were being placed upon them which were not in line with the old Schedule A valuations which had held sway up to that point—the beginning of the financial year of 1946. It is not a question of the gradual movement of rents; it is that at that time there began to be a distortion, from what the hon. and learned Gentleman might call rough justice, but at any rate some justice in Schedule A values—all being more or less alike—to a difference in values even in houses in the same street, when the new values were introduced. That was why that date was selected.
As to the argument about the tone of the list, and the hon. and learned Gentleman's point about the board having to have regard to the annual values of comparable land in the district, that refers again to Schedule A. We are saying that if a man has had the Schedule A value of his farm very much increased by virtue of a holding being cut into two or three or four smaller holdings, on one of which a house has been built, and it is out of line with the Schedule A value—on which drainage rates are levied—of other comparable farms of that size and type within the internal drainage district, the man can ask for the value to be reassessed to bring it back into line.
This is at the very heart of the new Clause. It is to enable those who have had agricultural land upvalued—whether they be owners or occupiers—to go to the internal drainage board and ask for a reassessment to bring their land back into line with other typical holdings of that character with the drainage district.
As to the question whether the Clause will be in the interests of the owner or


occupier, or both—to which question was tied the other question, whether it should be the board which assessed what the value would be—

Mr. Mitchison: I think that they are quite separate points. The question about the owner and the occupier is whether either can bind the other to this method of valuation.

Mr. Soames: This was enshrined long ago in legislation for internal drainage districts, and it is still understood within those districts. The hon. and learned Member has many books to help him, and in one I have no doubt he will find the 1930 Land Drainage Act. Section 29 (3) of that Act provides that
Where…a drainage board have made any apportionment or have determined any value, they shall serve notice of their decision upon both the owner and the occupier of the hereditament to which the decision relates, and the owner and the occupier, or either of them, may within twenty-eight days after the service of the notice, appeal against the apportionment or determination to a court of summary jurisdiction …
We are doing nothing new or wrong here. We want to bring about equity, and if either the owner or the occupier feels that he is on too high a Schedule A valuation, we want him to go to the board for reassessment. We are eager that that should be done. Whether it will be increased or decreased is neither here nor there, but in fact it will be decreased because it is the man who feels that his Schedule A valuation is too high who will go to the board for reassessment. We want equity between the man paying Schedule A on one farm and the man paying Schedule A on a neighbouring farm.

Mr. Mitchison: It seems to me entirely different to give either of two persons who feel aggrieved a right of appeal—that is what is done in the old Act—and to give either of two persons, both of whom are interested, the right to choose a particular method of assessment, which is what is done under the Bill.

Mr. Soames: It is not choosing a method of assessment. That is where the hon. and learned Gentleman has misunderstood it. The man is on Schedule A and remains on it. We are anxious to deal with the case in which the man feels that he is paying too much. Unlike his

neighbour, he may be on a high Schedule A valuation because he had a new house built in 1947. We are anxious that either the owner or the occupier should be able to take the assessment to the Board for reassessment according to the tone of the list. It is not a question of choice between valuation on net annual value and Schedule A.
I was asked whether the members of the board are the right people to determine on what Schedule A valuation the drainage rate should be assessed. The internal drainage district authority has a considerable knowledge of what goes on in the district. It has done this over a long time and I think that there has been no complaint about it. The system has worked well. It is well understood within the internal drainage districts, and we think it best that it should continue.

Mr. Willey: We are much obliged to the Minister, who has vigorously tried to persuade the Committee. I do not think that he has altogether succeeded. Unwittingly he has been somewhat unfair to the Committee. Earlier he said to me, "You are complaining of the obscurity of the subsection but you are moving its deletion, and if you succeed, then you will lose the subsection." That is not an excuse for bad and sloppy draftmanship.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at these provisions again to see whether the meaning can be more simply conveyed. I will not pursue the matter further, but I ask him to take note of the reference which I made to the Drainage Rates Act, 1958. He is obviously somewhat embarrassed by this, but I hope that in another place, if possible, this provision can be put in better form. It is at present ambiguous and obscure. The Country Landowners' Association, which is well advised in these matters, says that it regards this as far from clear.
Without pressing the matter further at this stage, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is well seized of the fact that this is obscure. I hope that the Leader of the House is seized of the fact that we have discussed this Clause all day without any attendance by the Law Officers. This Clause imposes charges, and by convention they ought to have been here. Their absence is a disrespect to the Committee which does not help us in our proceedings.
I take by way of illustrating another point the fact that my constituency is in a development district. We feel strongly that the Government are asking us to provide against our unemployment. That is not an answer to the question. The Government should take a more rigorous action. They are retreating from the proper development district policy. We are getting exactly the same attitude over this subsection. The Government are doing nothing about the anomalies in connection with Schedule A. They are asking the internal drainage boards to do something about it.
They are not dealing with the other drainage problems. When the right hon. Gentleman challenges me and says that if I insist on this Amendment I shall lose one of the purposes of this Clause, I am not very impressed. We have not yet had a satisfactory answer to whether the internal drainage boards will be equipped to deal with this problem. It is probable that the boards will not be able to discharge the responsibility that the Government are putting on them, which is unfair to the boards.
I wish to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) who emphasised the point we made during the Second Reading debate. The whole purpose of the agreed policy with regard to valuation is to put this on a national basis, but the whole purpose of this part of the new Clause is to break it up again. It was agreed that we should abandon the assessment committees, but this is going back to the old approach and saying that it is for the local rating body to strike equity. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is a case for something to be done. That was said repeatedly during the Second Reading debate and during the Committee stage discussions. We have to recognise that the Government are not doing anything. They are saying to the smaller drainage authorities—not to the river boards—" We are not doing anything. We appreciate your difficulty. Please try to do something if an application is made to you."
We canvassed this point on Second Reading and, because we did not receive satisfaction, we felt obliged to take this action. We recognise that the Clause has some merit, but we felt obliged to vote against its Second Reading. Having

taken that course, and recognising that the right hon. Gentleman obviously has an interest in this matter, we hope that he will look again at the wording of this subsection. I am sure that if he does he will be convinced that it can be improved.
When the Bill is discussed in another place, I hope that the opportunity will be taken to have a full and proper consultation with the drainage authorities. We have not been told why, if this is desirable, it has not been extended to the river boards. We have had no assurance that this duty was sought by the inland drainage boards. It would be unsatisfactory merely to transfer this duty to them because the Government felt it expedient to make a show of doing something. however little, about Schedule A. Having expressed these hopes, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Peart: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, to leave out subsection (7).
We require an explanation. This subject was previously raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds). We seek to delete subsection (7), which reads:
References in this section to the rateable value of any land shall be construed, where that value differs from the net annual value, as referring to the net annual value.
We think it rather odd wording. There may be an explanation for it. The Minister tried to explain broadly why he sought to make changes in the Bill where all hereditaments other than agricultural would be put on the same basis as the net annual value. Despite that, we think that there should be some explanation of the wording. This odd phrase may be due to draftsmanship. I hope that the Minister will give me a satisfactory answer.

Mr. Vane: I am not in the least surprised that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has asked the meaning of the subsection. It is, I am afraid, the sort of subsection that one sometimes finds in such a Clause for reasons of drafting, and I admit that one can mock it without end. There is good reason for the subsection, and I hope that in this instance we shall be given


the credit for being concise. The subsection we have just been discussing was said to be sloppy; this one, despite whatever demerits it may have, at least has the merit that it is concise.
I will attempt to explain the subsection. I should like the Committee to realise that the significance of these rather curious words is drafting and nothing else, and any alternative drafting would have been at very much greater length. It seems strange, but none the less I am advised that it is not possible in the Clause to use the term "net annual value" or the term "rateable value" throughout. We want to avoid the term "rateable value" when dealing with future assessments, because "rateable value" is net annual value abated by any derating provisions that there may be, which are likely to be of a temporary nature. Therefore, the term "rateable value" cannot be used as a general term covering the future.
On the other hand, the term "net annual value" cannot be used to cover all cases occurring in the present. I notice that the hon. Gentleman nods his head. He realises that in certain—not frequent—examples, there is no net annual value; that net annual value and rateable value are merged and "rateable value" is the term which is used.
I am sorry if the explanation is as confusing as the subsection itself, but the point is that it is impossible to use the same term to cover all cases in the present and all cases in the future. Therefore, rather than a very much longer explanation, this formula, strange though it may seem, is really the clearest and the best.

Mr. Peart: In view of the Minister's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

Mr. G. Brown: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
We have had a very good, very close, constructive and intensive debate on a very important Clause, and I think all hon. Members will agree that my hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have done their

duty without in any sense being obstructive or difficult. Indeed, I thought that the way my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) very graciously asked leave to withdraw the last Amendment, following the explanation which the Minister was good enough to say was no less confused than the part of the Clause that he was trying to explain, was very great evidence of the willingness of the Opposition to be co-operative whenever we can.
On the other hand, if we go on now we move to another new Clause entitled "Drainage rates—determination of relative poundage," which is at least as confusing and as complicated as the one with which we have just dealt. I am afraid that I have not been here all the time, but I have listened to the debate at intervals, and I am bound to say that the strain on the Government side is clearly showing. There is a certain jaded look on the benches opposite and the explanations of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary do not improve as the night wears on. The confusion in their speeches becomes rather more marked. Being charitably-minded people on these benches, it seems a good thing to come to the aid of hon. Members opposite and, having obtained the first new Clause on recommittal, it might be a good thing if they were allowed to go home and refresh themselves, so that we can come back another day to deal with the other new Clauses. Then we could proceed with the examination of this detailed and important Bill.
I hope that the Government will accept the Motion and not, as they have done on previous occasions, challenge us and obstruct us and cause us to react. I do not think that has been a good thing. They must themselves see that. We are fortunate in that the Chief Patronage Secretary is nowhere to be seen, and you are in the Chair, Sir William; so all the portents are good, and I hope that the Motion will be accepted.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I should like to make it clear that I have consulted my right hon. Friend, and that the Government think it is reasonable that we should at this stage accept the Motion moved by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). I will not waste


the time of the Committee by going into an elaborate answer to the right hon. Gentleman. I would only say that I listened to the Minister's answer to the right hon. Gentleman and I thought it was extremely clear.
The question of land drainage and the rights relating to land drainage and the like is something which caused the original civil wars, excited the intelligence of Oliver Cromwell and led to the complete upside down character of our State. It all those features in those days had been as clear as the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have been this evening, and if all the faces in the old days had been as bright as they are on this side of the Committee, we might have avoided internal rebellion in our country. That is all I can say in relation to land drainage.
I should like to say this in accepting the Motion. We have a long way to go in this Bill. I am ready to accept that many of the paints that have been made have been constructive. But it is a difficult Bill. Land drainage is a sticky subject and the drains are apt to get clogged. I hope that after this we may be able to make better progress when we

bring the Bill forward again. In that spirit, I accept the Motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

11.39 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): May I make a short statement on business on the Motion for the Adjournment?
Following discussions through the usual channels, arrangements have been made for a debate, on the Motion for the Adjournment, on Northern Rhodesia until 7 o'clock tomorrow. At 7 o'clock Private Members' Motions will be considered until 10 o'clock. We shall then take the Consolidated Fund Bill through its remaining stages which it is agreed should be obtained not later than 12 midnight. The White Fish and Herring Industries Bill will not now be taken.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Twelve o'clock.